Jump to content

Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

John Williams

I see it says Yates is brining back Hooper for this film but a recent article says John Williams will be returning [[1]]

What do you all make of it? True, unconfirmed rumor? --ShortShadow (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unconfirmed rumour, that's the only source to report Williams returning, and isn't official, so can't be used. Gran2 05:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Filming has finished?

As fars as I am aware from mugglenet and emmawatson.com, only principal photography has finished, the film is still "In production" and remains that until all of the photography has been finished (pickups, reshoots etc) and then it moves into post production (ADR, CGI, score etc). Please be sure you know your filming terms. Katana Geldar 09:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Are your reading the same article? All I can see is "Principal photography wrapped up on 17 May 2008." Gran2 13:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's because I changed it. Katana Geldar 09:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well actually (and I'm sorry for being a picky sod), this is the dif before you made your edit, and "Principal photography wrapped up on 17 May 2008", is already what is used in the article. Gran2 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Poster 2

The source listed for the uploaded poster 1 is the official site. Can someone point me to where the poster is located exactly? Because it seems to be a modified version of this publicity still. I've commented-out the image until this is resolved. Steve T • C 07:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not an offical image. It's a scan from an issue of Nickelodeon Magazine, and has not appeared in anything else (it is not on the official site). Gran2 08:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's from the official site either. For one, it would be much better quality, and wouldn't look like a scan of a magazine, which is what it is. Secondly, there's no link to a source on the web, so it's definitely not from the official or any other website because it would've said that. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Release dates

Which are actually suppose to be there? AUS and RSA is there for some reason, the UK should ofc be there, the US probably, on this list [2] if it is correct wouldn't it be more notable to have Belgium and Egypt showing somewhere, to show where it's released first. — chandler — 23:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS guidelines state we should only include countries who's primary language is English. The most common consensous it seems is to just include the UK, US and Australian dates on all American/British/Australian films, as well as possibly Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. Obviously for a German film, the German date would be included as well. For this, I think UK, US and Aus is really all that's needed. Which countries to include and when is something you may wish to bring up at WP:FILMS, to see what they say. Gran2 23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New release date announcement [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.44.116 (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

IMDB has the release date set at November 21 2008 could someone please update the article? heres a link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.148.26 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

IMDB's information is old and, thus, is no longer accurate. There was a news release today that stated the date for the release has been pushed back to July 19, 2009. --132 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the perfect, classic example of why we (Wikipedia) should never make crystalballing statements that suggest that a book or movie "will be" released on a certain date in the future. You never know if internal or external factors, planned or totally unexpected, will change that date. Many folks have assumed for years that the HBP film would be released "on pace" with the other films (approx. 18 months) for the Thanksgiving holiday weekend in the US, to capture and capitalize on the lucrative holiday crowds for record setting sales. Instead we should say it is scheduled for release, and use the date from the most reliable possible source, which is in this case, should be Warner Bros. IMDB, fan sites, and blog pages can set "firm" dates all they want, based on whatever mystical criteria they wish, but we should be more discerning. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 10:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


There has been some editing of the release date. The offical website (http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/harrypotterandthehalf-bloodprince/) still lists this movie as being planned for a July 17, 2009 release. Unless Warner Bros releases an offical statement I think it should stay like this. Comlag225 (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time

I removed this text:

but opted to pen The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time rather than the fifth film

from the sentence in the Development section about Steve Kloves. For one thing he didn't write the book, Mark Haddon did that, so it was badly worded and wrongly linked. And secondly, it doesn't seem as if there is a film being made of 'Curious Incident'. If anybody knows any different & can source their info, please feel free to correct. --Whoosher (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Maggie Smith and Helena Bonham Carter

Various IP addresses seem to be continually adding Smith and Bonham Carter's names to the "Starring" section of the infobox, despite being continually reverted by different users. The starring section is for the main roles in the film, neither Smith nor BC will likely appear in more than a couple of scenes. This is therefore not enough to justify inclusion in the infobox. Gran2 11:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree in principle. The "starring" cast should be limited to those that get "top billing" onscreen. In other words, "we" should not be deciding for ourselves who "stars" in this or any movie; it should be determined by Warner Bros in this case. Also it should probably be limited to perhaps no more than 5 actors in the infobox list - there is a section for the "the rest" of the cast (if I may facetiously borrow from the Gilligan's Island principle). That said, Maggie Smith portrays (arguably) one of the most beloved characters in the series. Not totally convinced yet that Jim Broadbent (Slughorn) should be among the "top 5" either, at least until we see how and where WB places him in the "top billing" list. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast

Since when do cast lists include plot elements?Vordabois (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite frequently. Gran2 11:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. MOS:FILM The absence of a concrete plot section sort of necessitates it. Sorry about my objection. Vordabois (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Who is cast in the role of the Muggle Prime Minister? That info is missing so far. --217.91.33.230 (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not "missing", it has never been released. And it's very likely the scene has been cut. Gran2 11:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2009 or November 2008?

I'm confused for Half-Blood Prince, the release date was changed! are you sure it's not coming on November 21st, 2008? Is it coming on July 17th, 2009? 71.72.224.217 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it quite clear, with several references to news sites, that release has been moved to July '09. It's enough to make your blood boil isn't it -damn hollywood! --Brideshead(leave a message) 18:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Unfortunately the current Warner Bros. movie trailer for HBP still says "November" (2008), and I have not found an official press release from Warner, but there are numerous and adequate sources which are highly reliable (eg: The BBC) that explain that HBP release has been delayed. Primarily this is due to an already overly-successful blockbuster summer for WB with Dark Knight, along with a scheduling conflict with another highly anticipated WB film due later this year Quantum of Solace, and apparently due to nothing else that is "record-setting good" currently planned for Summer 2010. So we must wait for it, with considerable annoyance. It may be that DH-a will then release in Nov-Dec 2010, and DH-b around Jun-Jul 2011 - on a roughly 6-month cycle for the last 3 movies, rather than the 18-month cycle we had (previously) grown accustomed to over the last few films. That said, it ruins MY plans for this Thanksgiving weekend. Well, there is still the football and the eating ... --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

well if the movie is done and sits there wating for 6~8 months, chances are it will be leaked on to the web. Perhaps there may not be as much waiting to be done afterall....of course you could always just read the book again if your that disappointed.Shawninmont (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a hope in hell of the movie leaking before its release. Most major releases sit on the shelves for 4-5 months in completed form before release without leaks, let alone something as high profile and profitable as an entry in the HP franchise. 77.249.207.50 (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ANYTHING can be leaked, including an entry in the HP franchise. In fact, the entire last book (Deathly Hallows) was leaked about a week before the release. Just because it is high profile or highly profitable does not mean it won't be leaked. In fact, it's MORE likely to be leaked. That said, unless you would like to discuss the Wikipedia article and how this pertains to it (which it doesn't), general discussion about the topic and what may or may not happen needs to cease. Thanks. --132 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, not quite "ANYTHING". Remember that the DH books were "leaked" last summer because they had to begin printing them in vast numbers well in advance (weeks if not months), and then they had to be stored in secure warehouses around the world for many weeks, and then shipped to the tens or hundreds of thousands of bookstores worldwide, several days in advance of the official release date, in order to meet the anticipated first-days demand. In spite of publisher "demands" for an embargo and high security, it was simply too much temptation for some minimum-wage bookstore clerks in obscure no-name towns to grab a copy or two, and start reading and discussing, and taking pictures for posting on the web. The sheer bulk of millions of hardback books being shipped globally made it virtually impossible to seal off all possible leaks. In any case, HP films only get shipped to theatres a few days before the release date, and it would do no minimum-wage ticket takers any good stealing it - they would have no suitable projector at home to watch it. And, with current digital technology, the movie may be delivered to most if not all theatres on release-day as digital files, rather than as physical projection film on reels in canisters. Finally - who would care to go to the trouble to steal and leak a film? Unlike the DH leaks - most fans already know pretty much everything that is going to happen in the film - they already read the books. Piracy might be an issue - where unauthorized "cell phone" or digital copies might be made after release and distributed on DVD's or something, but again that would be post-release film piracy, not a "leak" per se. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Upset Fans

Should it be mentioned that it has made many fans mad that it has been pushed back. Please dont delete. -->Cody G--> August 22 2008

OK we won't delete. Answer: maybe. Can you find a reliable source that discusses it? We cannot say things like "some fans are very upset that the release of the film has been delayed several months" or something, even though it may be intuitively true that some fans are upset. We just can't casually refer to the assumed feelings of unidentified anonymous folks in an encyclopedia (see avoiding weasel words), unless we have a verifiable source that discusses the issue. Unfortunately, the blog page of an irate HP super-fan is not good enough - we would need something from, for example, a news outlet, like the BBC. The fact that the film has been pushed back is very well documented. How people might feel about that is less so. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


I have only just found out that the film is not being relesed this weekend as i thought, its like a bad dream —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There's an online petition that has pages of comments written by upset fans. Maybe I can find it. Will edit this post later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.211.141 (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Early Screenings?

Two things which I'm not sure should be mentioned. First, recently an early screening was held in Chicago for the film. The fact that the film had early screenings is nothing unusual, since that happens with films all the time (especially high-profile films) but considering that Eric Scull from MuggleNet went and then posted a review of what he saw, along with a report on Leaky from another fan, should the screening be mentioned? Second, should we mention what was put in both reviews? I don't think it should go in "release" but maybe post-production? I'm thinking it's "no" on both but thought I'd bring it up to get other people's feedback. Probably the only one that would have some merit is mentioning things from the review. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really needs to be mentioned. These were just test screenings, and so aren't notable. I read Eric's review, but forgot most of its content; did he give any production info, or mention things which were cut? Those would be worth mentioning. Gran2 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to re-read it, but I think he mentioned scenes that weren't previously known to be in (only one I can think of is the attack on the Burrow). I don't think we knew that was going to be in the movie before he posted his review. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Since is it not unusual to have test screenings for films, I have removed that part of the "Release" section. It also seemed out of place and disrupted the flow of the article.JenWSU (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

New Release Date?

Yesterday (October 27, 2008) a new Half-Blood Prince trailer came out saying it was coming out "this year"! Does that mean they've decided to air it in 2008?

192.220.128.22 (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No the movie is definitely coming out in 2009. --"Legolas" (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dumbledore's funeral cut?

Have you guys read the screening review that Dumbledore's funeral has been cut?? this is so absurd!! What are they trying to do? Also David Heyman says that they have a twist in the end. Whats that supposed to mean? --"Legolas" (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry but you guys obviously don't know much about how to make a movie. They can't possibly use every scene and besides that wasn't exactly a critical part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgreg10 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dumbledoes funeral is not cut. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2009/1/1/dan-radcliffe-on-dumbledores-funeral-for-half-blood-prince-emma-watson-on-deathly-hallows-split —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.89.90 (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DD's funeral has been re-writen, and there WILL be a surprise at the endinng. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosMaster16 (talk • contribs)

Good to know. But this isn't the place to talk about it unless you have a reliable source to back up your claims. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How could they cut the scene of the Gaunts? I was looking forward to it! Ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.211.141 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


It still says the Funeral is not gonna be there, even though it will be now? ZODtheReaper (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The funeral is in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.89.188 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

new trailer

in the newest trailer on mugglenet it shows that Seamus and Dean will both be in the movie and possibly the Patil twins though the seemed to be recast. Rowle may also be in the trailer as well as theirs a large blonde deatheater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.58.32 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

Throughout this article, the date formats are as follows: 17 July 2009, etc. but shouldn't the format be July 17, 2009 instead? This is what Wikipedia uses predominantly. Please clarify. — Tds247 (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The poster we got earlier in the year

We got this poster back with that 15 second teaser trailer. It's pretty bland and I didn't really think of it as the real poster, but just as a place filler, but since no poster has come yet....

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Half-Blood_Prince_Poster.jpg

202.154.155.72 (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks just like that fanmade one... I wonder why? ;) Gran2 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a real one. Foreign WB sites had in up earlier in the year. 202.154.155.72 (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Source? Gran2 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It must have got taken down from the upcoming films poster thing after the delay - I just went to see if its up there, but its not. It WAS here: http://www.ar.warnerbros.com/web/main/movies/movies.jsp 202.154.155.72 (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I just came back to add that WB USA has a similar graphic available for download as the film poster: http://www.warnerbros.com/#/page=movies&pid=f-c6632760/HARRY_POTTER_AND_THE_HALF-BLOOD_PRINCE&asset=065964/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince_-_Coming_To_Theaters_July_17_2009&type=video/ though I see someone put it back in .... 202.154.155.72 (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


Australian Release?

I was just wondering if anyone has proof of the release for Australia, i don't remember seeing it being released before the UK and US. --Hithere2008 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All sources I can find say July 17, 2009. JenWSU (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/releaseinfo 202.154.151.8 (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also http://www.greaterunion.com.au/movies/6800/Harry-Potter-And-The-Half-Blood-Prince.htm http://thecia.com.au/reviews/h/harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince.shtml http://au.movies.yahoo.com/Harry+Potter+and+the+Half+Blood+Prince/movie/20935/ http://www.lookforward.com.au/Pages/Event.aspx?eid=d7dece7a-a07c-4cb6-830a-890b0ed65f30 http://www.empireonline.com.au/futurefilms/film.asp?ID=15119 202.154.151.8 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Improve the Article

In the cast list, it sounds like this movie is still in production, but it's not. EX: "will reprise there roles" should be "reprise their roles as". Can we work on fixing these things? ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Maybe. I think the intent is to avoid engaging in forbidden crystalballery. Granted the post-production and editing work has most likely ended to the satisfaction of all involved. But since we are talking about something that is still planned for release in about a half-year, there are always crazy possibilities that might further delay the release, or even cancel it. What if one of the actors is accused of a horrendous crime (and appears to be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, at least to the general public)? Something to the level of OJ Simpson, such that there could be a massive boycott of the film. Imagine for a moment if OJ had performed a role in a comedy film that was scheduled to be released in the fall or winter of 1994/95 - it would probably never have been released. Thus, it could be that Warner Bros would delay or pull the HP film, or perhaps re-cast the part, or delete or refilm the scenes where the actor appeared, and removed the credits to that actor. That said, saying "X, Y, and Z will reprise their roles is shaky as well, for the same reasons. What I think we can say is what has already happened so far - the actors "have reprised their roles in principal photography..." or something to that effect. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 00:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Current Poster

Is the current poster a real one? I've tried finding it everywhere and can't seem to find it. Can someone with better knowledge on the subject please fill me in? Thanks. kgreg10

It is 100% real. 202.154.146.108 (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Starring Roles

How come Helen McCrory can be in there when she is only in 2 scenes and Helena Bonham-Carter can't when she is in 3? 202.154.146.108 (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Bonham Carter is definitely higher ranking than McCrory, starring wise, in the film. Which is why I keep trying to add her to it! Angelic-alyssa (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have proof that McCrory is only in two scenes? Gran2 22:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. [4] She's only mentioned twice: Spinner's End and Draco's Detour (new addition) and she was cut from Madam Malkin's.
Bellatrix, however is possibly in the Bridage attack at the start and definately in Spinner's End, the Burrow Attack and the climax.
Actually, now I think about it, even Greyback has more scenes than Narcissa! He's definately in Diagon Alley at the start, with Draco at Borgin and Burkes, Burrow Attack and also the Climax! 202.154.145.106 (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying that you personally have seen the film's final cut? Personally I think we should just wait until the film's release before speculating who has the biggest roles. Gran2 08:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
On Warner Bros official website, the credit Bonham Carter as a starring role (at the bottom), however there is no mention of McCrory. I personally feel that if Warner Bros consider Bonham Carter as starring, then she should be added to the starring list. [5] Angelic-alyssatalk 14:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well WB are handling that from a marketing point of view. Bonham Carter will have a fair sized role, but she is probably included there because she is one of the most famous cast members internationally. I mean, looking at that list, it's unlikely Warwick Davis will have a big role, and why include Julie Walters but not Mark Williams? Plus Bonnie Wright and Tom Felton are not there at all. I agree that McCrory probably shouldn't be included there, but I think the best judge of who should will probably end up being something like the end credits. Gran2 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Release

I added the section about the release again, this time with a reference. It's one of the most discussed things in the fandom at this time, and I believe it's worth having. Please talk here before changing it back, to explain why - or you'll become engaged in an edit war... TheUnfortunate (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

certainly the fact of its rating is valid. As to an alleged controversy the opinions of blogs and fan pages is not considered encyclopaedic MrMarmite (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

But at this moment in time - the fact that it has controversially been rated PG is pretty much the only interest people are showing towards the film. I believe it's perfectly acceptable to put that that's happening in the fandom. Simply stating that the trailers have been rated 12a in the UK poses no interest to anybody unless they appreciate the current situation - so thus we need to explain it! TheUnfortunate (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but this is an encyclopaedia and as such should only report known and quantifiable facts. MrMarmite (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And is it not a fact that the fandom is discussing this? TheUnfortunate (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Change From The Original Book

I don't know if you want to add this to the section which you have for changes from the book. But it was something that was really bugging me when viewing some of the trailers floating around. In those trailers it can be seen that a home (that looks like the Weasley home; "The Burrow") is surrounded by a ring of fire and that Bellatrix Lestrange arrives there. You also see Ginny Weasley in a nightdress in marsh-like surroundings and her wands is disarmed.

After a little digging around I found this reference to a scene involving a Death-Eater attack at the burrow involving Harry and Ginny. It is explained at the end of this short video which was orginially aired as part of the MTV Spoilers series...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-imfbg1w_R4

The scenes in which I refer can be seen... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwmBnIhlzI (Bellatrix arrival at 1.18) (Burrow surrounded by fire at 1.23)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtvDSqgcmWo (Ginny in nightdress being disarmed at 0.54)

I thought you may want to add this information. Since it was bugging me and took me a while to find the details it may be the same for others?

MarkCF (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)MarkCF 17.03.09

"...and an attack on the Burrow by Bellatrix Lestrange and werewolf Fenrir Greyback are added", it is already there. And have been for a while chandler · 22:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I must have completely missed that... :( MarkCF (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)MarkCF 18.03.09

Details of Rob Knox's death

An anon recently removed a sentence giving details of the death of Rob Knox, replacing it by simply referring to the actor as "The late Rob Knox". Another editor reverted this without comment. I reinstated it, arguing that "the late" is simply respectful, while the details of the death are not actually relevant to the film's article itself (I've used the same argument when making similar changes to Wikinews articles in the past, and it met with approbal there). The original reverter re-reverted, saying that it is against common style, as "over half of the names on the site would have to include the prefix "the late", therefore a mention of his death is needed".

I feel this is a bit of a straw man; while, yes, many articles here are about people now deceased, most of them are not appearing in a movie released after their death. On the other hand, I find the sentence giving details about his death to be disconnected from, and distracting from, the rest of the article.

Rather than getting (further) into a revert war, I'd like to hear some other opinions on this. John Darrow (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is against common style: "the late" is respectful, yes, but it isn't encylopedic. There isn't a specific policy on it, but this is a here's a recent discussion on the issue. I agree that we don't need full details of his death, but "the late" should, in my opinion, not be used because it is too, I don't know, "personal" a phrase. Wikipedia is not a memorial and "the late" is a euphemism for death, and euphemisms are words to avoid. See The Dark Knight and Star Trek: Heath Ledger, Randy Pausch and Majel Barrett all died before these films were released and neither of the articles uses "the late", they simply state that these people died before the release, which is all that is really needed here. Gran2 08:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the WP:AN pointer; I hadn't found anything on this. It looks like encyclopedia style is somewhat different from news article style (which commonly uses "the late" to acknowledge someone's having died without getting into the details of their death in an article not related to that death).
I've modified the entry to use a similar style to that for Barrett. (Ledger, being a lead actor and with far more coverage regarding his death, is a very different case.) John Darrow (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that certainly works a lot better than the orignal. Gran2 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

IMAX Released Push Back

I just read that the movies IMAX release is being pushed back two weeks because Transformers has a one month long exclusivity with IMAX. I would add this myself but Im really bad at adding things, so I figured I'll leave to someone who knows what there doing. Here are just two links I found, not sure if there good soucrces but here you go anyways http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/technology/news/e3i6c932f87e11ed33af2f01700d0f26ca8

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/06/08/ap6517290.html Rosario lopez (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fan site HPANA got direct confirmation from WB's domestic distribution president that the release was delayed: http://www.hpana.com/news.20856.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.92.99 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is only in the US, I think people should know this and it should be clarified 202.154.153.87 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

At the end of the Warner Brothers press release near the beginning of the article it is signed 'Waner Brothers' which is obviously incorrect

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.148.54 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort?

Apparently Wikipedia now states that Ralph Fiennes is slated to return as Lord Voldemort in Half-Blood Prince, except that only IMDB confirms this. Is this correct? It has been stated that Hero Fiennes-Tiffin and Frank Dillane will portray young Voldemorts, instead of Ralph returning as an adult Voldemort, but he will return for Deathly Hallows. IMDB is not always right. Their information has been known from time to time to be out-of-date and/or based purely on speculation. So. Which is it? Will he really be returning as Voldemort in a full role, or will it just be archive footage? If so, shouldn't his credit be listed under 'archive footage' on IMDB, or a 'cameo appearance' be noted in his article's filmography section? Please let me know. Tds247 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB have updated their cast list and removed Ralph: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/fullcredits#cast 202.154.153.87 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Article for "Differences" section

What's cut, what stays, what's new in Half-Blood Prince at SCI FI Wire. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot?

Shouldn't there be a Plot Section in the Article? Just Wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.77.87 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It just came out today give people time to see it, it will be complete by the end of the day or tomorrow The Movie Master 1 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Has someone cut and pasted the plot section from the Simple English Wikipedia? Its written like a 13-year-old did it for a school assignment. As is the differences section. Theres enough of you out there to sort it out surely 77.103.30.92 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Americanism

'On the Hogwarts Express, Harry, convinced that Malfoy is now a Death Eater, uses his Invisibility Cloak and Peruvian Darkness Powder the twins gave him to sneak into the Slytherins boxcar.'

A boxcar is, I believe, a freight waggon attached to a train in the US. What the characters are travelling in on the Hogwarts Express is a carriage or compartment (British usage) and that is how J.K. Rowling would refer to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfoster (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

'Lord' JohnPaul Castrianni

Okay, basically ive sat and dug around through every name in the credits, and theres one guy I am 99% sure is not in this film. This is 'Lord' John Paul Castrianni, he doesnt appear in any of the credits in the movie (I guess I cant prove a citation till its out on dvd!), and doesnt appear in any of the published credits on any websites that cant be edited (wikipedia, imdb, casting call pro). But note, on Yahoo movies, etc he is not listed in the credits.

This seems very, very like Wikiality of truth coming to the fore, and he has edited half a dozen webpages to make it credible he appears in the film (which from what ive seen, he doesn't).

Incidentally, is 'Lord' his first name? Or is it a non UK title I wander? He doesnt appear in any relevant listings within the UK, which leads me to believe that he is infact possibly a double fraud.

To note again, only sources used are: IMDB - Anyone can edit Wikipedia - While I love it, its been abused in this case Some interview with a potter fansite he gave - easily done Casting call pro - self-made vanity page

Lets get this sorted out and taken down asap! For the good of wikipedia! JamieHughes (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be that he's just an uncredited extra who thinks his part deserves some attention. But I agre it should probably be taken down (According to the link he's from Iceland anyway and the character he supposedly plays is as far as we know British, which conflicts with the casting policy of these films.) Gran2 08:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot section is still too long

I know I've edited it significantly down, but the plot section is still too long. (compare this to the plot for Deathly Hallows which is 3 paragraphs). We need to figure a way to reduce extraneous events to the main plot. One trick is to expand into the character section any subtle details that aren't significant to the overall plot. It can be done, but it will take time. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and add that some of the details are incorrect. For example, it says the Harry, Ron and Hermione are all suspicious of Draco being in a ritual at Borgin and Burkes. However, Ron and Hermione don't believe it was a ritual and think Harry is overreacting. Also, does anyone know why Warner Brothers' offical plot summary was removed?JenWSU (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what that would be but wholesale repetition of a copyrighted summary is a no-no. We have to summarize it ourselves, though certainly we can use the WB version for source. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Starring

Why on earth is Helen McCrory in the starring section? She had one scene, Helena Bonham Carter is the next (after the actors already on the starring list) to have the most scenes. Shouldn't she be on the list rather than McCrory? Angelic-Alyssa (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Added scenes

While I agree that the article is a bit long, I think that we should mention the scenes that are added into the film on this page, as we will not find them in the more detailed plot on the novel's page. I am of the belief that relevent detail should be included, but these scenes are probably better on this page. Grieferhate (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this link, * Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Audio Quotes at Entertonement, as this website has links to a bootlegged copy of HP6 Darth Jadious (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuity error

I seen the movie a few days ago, and I noticed that the Millennium Bridge collapses - despite the story being set in the mid 90's. Shouldn't this error be referenced in the 'Filming' section? or if it is, then sorry for not reading it correctly. Whoniverse93 talk? 15:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be mentioned anywhere because it is non-notable trivia. Gran2 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That sort of anachronism is more suited for being talked about on IMDB which devotes special sections to such trivia. Unless the scene caused some public controversy or made news somewhere, it isn't worth talking about. Peabody80 (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Integrating "Differences"

Can someone please integrate the cited differences into other parts of the article body? The "Differences" section keeps attracting good-faith but trivial differences as analyzed by the editors themselves, not any secondary sources. Another option is to expand that section big-time since its small size may encourage editors to add trivia. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Or we should make a separate wiki page for "Differneces between HBP film and Book", then delete it in a month after everyone gets their chance to complain. Peabody80 (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Going down?

[6] says it now has less than before ($465million vs $674million), was this a mistake by BOM? 201.173.220.73 (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Concern over neutrality, continuity, and spoilers of "Differences" section

I've not edited much, so I wanted to check first.

I was reading over the article and found sentences that suggest a bias or favoritism towards aspects of the book and a slight disdain for the absence of material from the movie. I believe minor revisions of this section should be done to make it more fact-based and less pointed.

Examples: "There are a number of changes from the book in the film which include a greater emphasis placed on less important subplots", "...is oddly not present.", "...werewolf-like condition (as a result of the bite) plays an important role in the upcoming film's plot", etc. There may be more, I did not read the whole section a second time, but these seemed significant.

Also, the section seems to jump around the plot, presenting the differences in a haphazard manner.

And it may not be needed to include as much plot detail.

Agree or disagree?

Simulation90 (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree. This is the movie. It needs to be dealt with as the movie. People who want to grouch about changes from the book can go to the IMDb talk pages and whinge, complain and argue it out to their hearts' content. Everyone knows that the movie had to greatly reduce the sub-plots. As for Tonks and Lupin, the establishment of the relationship in this story tells the intelligent viewer that the realtively unimportant subplot of Lupin and Tonks' on-and-off again relationship has been removed from the last movie. What the film-makers have done is establish that there is something between them , so that when they die, side-by-side, in the last movie, the movie-goer will know why.
  • As for the removal of not one but two anti-climactic scenes, Dumbledore's funeral and the small Battle of Hogwarts before the big Battle of Hogwarts..... what the filmmakers gave the viewer was sufficient: the death, the destruction, the fire, the chaos, the rage, the grief and the departure of the phoenix. For young wiki-readers who don't understand why it was done in this way, then look up anti-climax. It is done for reasons of goood theatre. Having a battle in this movie would simply have taken away from the big battle in the last movie, without adding anything useful to the story at all.
  • My query about the text of this article is a much more pedantic one- it states here that Bellatrix is Narcissa's older sister. It then re-states that Narcissa is Bellatrix's younger sister. Where did this information come from? The relationship between the two women, both in the books and the movie, indicates the opposite. The very manipulative and childish Bellatrix, who calls her sister "Cissy" (as in Sissy short for Sister) relates to her sister as if she is the youngest child in the family and expects to be spoilt. Do the novels indicate that Bellatrix is the older of the two?
Amandajm (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I disagree with a few things. First off, it may be a movie, but it is a movie based on the book--no--it is a movie adaptation of a book. Therefor, it is imperitive that it captures what the book is about, the 'essence' of the book. All that you said is personal opinion. The fact is, if you're going to make a movie called Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, it should stay true to the book that it is emulating. For instance, the movie is called 'Half Blood Prince', yet they hardly have ANY recollation of that at all. Just a quick "I am the Prince-man!". At that point, I forgot all about the half blood prince plotline. Even as a stand-alone movie, it didn't make sense.
Most importantly, in regards to that battle comment, if they have to cut out a part of the book in fear it would seem repetitive, then there is a problem with the director. If he must change source material that he is using in fear of being repetitive, then that says something about his directing style.
However, I completley agree with Simulation9. This "Differences from the book" article seems too bias, or at the very least, seems to be written with some emotion. That should NOT be the case. Despite that, every point in that section was right, regardless of the feelings. If that section was written with less emphasis of comtempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simple796 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Minor point; "Cissy" is short for "Narcissa", and Bellatrix is the oldest of the three (Andromeda Black is the mother of Tonks) sisters. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I realise that "Cissy" is short for Narcissa. That is obvious. But "Sissy" is something that little sisters often call bigger sisters. D you mind giving me an approximate reference for the info, Tarc? Amandajm (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
That may be, but it isn't how it is used in this context, so not really relevant. As for the source, I believe it would be called the book. Tarc (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. I thought you must have looked it up to make sure, and therefore have a page number which you could provide, which is really quite a normal ask, when a fact is queried (or isn't it?).
I have a suggestion that since some people care desparately about the changes and omissions, that a whole page is dedcated to them called List of Changes etc etc etc. Then it can be tediously long, can be ordered and reordered and everyone will be happy. Amandajm (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
As for the context in which "Cissy" is used, we (the viewer) are hearing it said, not seeing it spelt. And it is being used by a very childish person, one who is told "Bella, we don't touch things that don't belong to us!" If you haven't picked up on the context, then you've simply missed the subtleties. Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I found a website that answers the question. JKR drew a Black family tree. There are a few odd things about it, but she gives a cleart date for Bellatrix. She was definitely the eldest of the three. Amandajm (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This section should be developed through only two types of sources: the creators behind the work (either JK herself or the movie directors/scriptwriters) citing why they did not include scene X or altered scene Y to do such-and-such, and the reception from reviewers that, for example, may say the absence of scene Q was odd. Any other comparisons to the book without such sources is going to border on OR. (For example, the small battle before Dumbledore's death may have been implied by the script or images of it shot but dropped for clarity. Thus, implying that it is not in the movie is OR until proven otherwise). --MASEM (t) 13:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree per MOS:FILM#Adaptation from source material. It is trivial to list all the differences because there will be differences. Perfect adaptations are the exception, not the norm (if there even is a perfect adaptation out there). The only differences that should be listed are those that have relevance attached through secondary sources, and it particularly helps if there is explanation about the changes or response to the changes. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The destruction of The Burrow at Christmastime is a major departure from the book's plot. It would have an enormous emotional impact on all of the Weasleys and Hermione and Harry. Beyond what is there now, this is the only difference that I think should be added. Sorry, but I am not interested in digging up secondary sources, but it is an important change. Ronstew (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If it is an important change, it would have been covered in secondary sources. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, no doubt, Erik. But I'm not going to hunt for them. I hope that somebody will. Ronstew (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's one http://www.nypost.com/seven/07122009/entertainment/movies/fiction_vs__fiction_178864.htm JenWSU (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Then by all means those referenced can be included (though working the details in prose as opposed to a list as given in the sourced article would be best). --MASEM (t) 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
In my free time, I'll look up a few things of differences. There was an interview before the movie came out, explaining why some scenes were left out. I'll be glad to cite them.
However, I do feel that a "Differences" section may be necessecary to this article. Opinion or not, it does, in fact, vastly differ from the book, on major scenes, plots, etc, that tied the book together. For example, the entire "Half Blood Prince" subplot was left out, and whether one feels it important or not, it would be hard to argue that it isn't a major subplot (leading up to Snape's revelation at the end of the movie). That can be taken from things straight out of the book. Regardless on my feelings, I wold agree that without citation, the section won't work. But those major changes/drops (which is unusual for those movies, in my opinion) should at least be given a mention if it can't have it's own section.Simple796 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)
I do think notable differences (i.e. ones reported by reliable sources) should be included, but would go along better in the production section, maybe even as a subsection. As in why director/producers/writers decided to cut the ones they did, not just a list of differences. BOVINEBOY2008 17:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, exactly. There was an interview before the movie was released, explaining why at least two scenes (the Battle, and the funeral) was left out. Of course, that was two of many, but at least he gave some reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simple796 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
User:mihirviveka
I agree with Amandajm, and there are very serious plot changes and removals like Harry inheriting Sirius Black's house and the elf Kreacher, Characters like Mundungus Fletcher and his staling Sirius's possessions including the locket horcrux were removed. Harry hiding his book in the room of requirement beside the fourth horcrux was changed and instead Ginny hides it while Harry closes his eyes. Also I do not think that harry would just stand there and let Dumbledore die because just before that he was angry about Snape because it was he who told the prophecy of Trelawney to Voldemort.


Several such important points about the characters were changed. These changes undermine the nature of the characters and the story.

I think that the changes section should be more elaborate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihirviveka (talk • contribs) 07:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why you explain the whole movie?(Plot)

The movie still on Theathers! LeonimuZ | Live The Life! (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consider any issues with spoilers. As long as the information is verifiable, it is worth inclusion (Also, it's not like it changes THAT much from the book whcih was out much longer). --MASEM (t) 00:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Misleading wordiness

The section "Plot" begins: "Having returned to power, Death Eaters attack both the Muggle and Wizarding worlds..."

This is a classic example of someone with poor English trying to hide it with wordiness and ending up with an incorrect statement. The Death Eaters were never in power and have not returned to it. Shorter sentences please, "clever" folk... you'll get confused less. ;-)

Concerning the above paragraph: Weren't they in power during Voldamort's previous reign during which the Potters were killed and the LongBottoms drivern insane? I don't see anything wrong with the original statement, either in subject matter or in grammar, and there's no reason to act condescending, particularly since you forgot the rule about signing your post.CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rock location

Bradastac

I realise the cliff and stack scene has a main location of the Cliffs of Moher in Ireland, but I wondered if it might conceivably have been inspired by Bradastac in St Kilda. I can't see anything to corroborate this but if anyone comes across any such information, please let me know. Thanks. Ben MacDui 09:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Death Eaters "Returning to Power"

I'm not sure it's correct to say, "Having returned to power, Death Eaters attack" etc. etc. Something just doesn't seem right there. I think maybe it would be more correct to say that *Voldemort* has returned to power, or the Dark Forces, or something along those lines.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

DVD/Blu Ray Release Date

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" will be not setting yet on December, 2009 before Hanukkah start's on Saturday December 12, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.90.25 (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is coming to release date on December 8, 2009 before Hanukkah will be starting.

Blue Ray To Include DH Sneak Peek

I don't remember anything saying that there is going to be a sneak peak of DH on the blue ray. It isn't mentioned in the reference.--Debbie rocks (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Cast list

What is the system used to decide who goes in the cast list section, and in what order? There is a hidden comment not to include Evanna Lynch/Luna Lovegood, but no reason given. Abductive (reasoning) 16:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Midnight record broken

Half-Blood Prince's midnight opening record of $22 million has been broken by New Moon which grossed $26 million so $4 million more, despite of the fact that HBP cost five times more. Mo HH92 Talk 10:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Too much about 3d imax release dates in lead

Is that stuff really so important as to take up half a paragraph in the lead section? It doesn't even make grammatical sense.

In everywhere but the United States, the sixth film was simultaneously released in regular cinemas and IMAX 3-D in all countries. In the US, the IMAX version was delayed by 2 weeks because of a Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen several week commitment.[7] The film was released instead in IMAX 3D on 29 July, two weeks after its original release, in these countries.[8]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.68.231 (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Author Response

In the articles for the 5th film and the movie series, it is stated that the author thinks the "best one yet" is Order of the Phoenix, but I was wondering if we had any information about this, as the reference says 2007, before this came out. Do we have any information on what JKR thinks of this? --Exrain (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film)/Archive 4/GA1

Semi-protection request

This film has constantly been vandalized and has been added with pointless information from anon ips. It would be good for the article that established users only can edit the article.--Guy546(Talk) 01:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, for 1 month. —WWoods (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody?

Is anybody up for cleaning up references with me? I will try to, but there are about 15 dubious references on the article and I am trying to get this article up to GA status after it failed last time. Guy546(Talk) 16:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help. I'm thinking of adding a differences from the book section to mirror the format of the other articles in this film series. Here's a few I've found: [7], [8]...--Glimmer721 talk 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cast List

I edited this based on consensus/decisons on the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) page. I cleared out refs now that the movie's out and updated it so that all cast members besides those billed BEFORE, NOT INCLUDING the secondary cast (where two names are listed) in the credits and/or the theatrical poster. I also adjusted the mention of new/returning minor actors to reflect this. We agreed people could go on the Further information link to find out who these people are. WP:MOSFILM also states we should "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that really belongs in the plot summary." Therefore, I adjusted it to actor/role/title. Thanks! Evil Genius77 (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple things...I don't believe that some characters like Pettigrew and Flitwick should be listed when more major characters (who also have more screen time) like Ginny and Luna should be cut from the list. I know they are also in the plot summary, but we ought to credit Bonnie Wright and Evanna Lynch. Oh yes, and what about Draco and Lucius Malfoy? Tom Felton is listed under "Starring" in the infobox. I looked on the talk page of DH(flim) but I didn't see a big debate. --Glimmer721 talk 22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a big debate, just an agreement. And yes, I quite agree with you, but perhaps not Evanna Lynch. I'm changing most of the pages (except Deathly Hallows, which might benefit from it too though) so that they list the secondary cast as well, everything being in credits order. I think it just makes the pages more informative, and that's what we're going for. Evil Genius77 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
But Luna is mentioned in the plot section... --Glimmer721 talk 23:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Why do we need to cite that it is a) based on the book of the same name and b) the sequel to the film directly before it?125.237.43.217 (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Because an encyclopedia A) assumes that people are reading an article because they don't know all about it and B) it provides text to link to the articles on the book and the sequel so readers can get to them easily. --Tysto (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Differences From the Book

Come on, we need this in here!!! There are many differences. --Glimmer721 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's much more important (and interesting) than this overflowing marketing stuff you have all over. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed if you mean we need sourced information as to why the differences exist. If you're talking about a fairly useless and trivial listing with no context, I'd refer you to IMDB. Doniago (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, here are some differences (in no particular order)off the top of my head. I really need to watch the movie again...
1. The role of Bellatrix (she does NOT come to the Weasleys house at Christmas--they have protective splls areound the Burrow--does not burn it down, and is not at Hogwarts at the end.)
2. Some missing memories (the very first one, one that gave the clue to the Hufflepuff cup...and a few others)
3. If I'm not mistaken, Slughorn does not mention that he was going to give the meade to Dumbledore for Christmas, but he forgot. Also...I don't recall Ron drinking the potion first and then they were going to have a drink afterward. I could be wrong.
4. Snape does not ask Harry to get his potions book after the Sectumsempra incident.
5. Hermione doesn't explain why Snape is the "Half-Blood Prince."
6. The Dursleys do not appear--it starts when he's in a restaurant or something.
7. After they return from the lake, Dumbledore asks Harry to go get Snape. In the movie, he goes down stairs and happens to watch the whole thing from a window in the middle of the astronomy tower. However, in the book, he was under the cloak, invisible, and Dumbledore put a curse on him so he couldn't move.
8. Other fighting at Hogwarts does not happen (and Bill was bitten by Fenrir Greyback in the book, but it wasn't full moon).

I know there's more, as well as things that were omitted. --Glimmer721 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see this as trivia only (by the way, some of them are wrong : Bellatrix was at Hogwart in the movie and the book). The only interesting one is the first where you say that the Death Eater burned the Burrow in the movie. This was made to show the reign of terror in the world. In the book, we see a lot of people discussing it and we also understand the terror via some Prophet articles. In the movie, they didn't have time for this, so they made this scene. If I'm not mistaken, it was the producer that explained it. Find a source, and it would be suitable for the article. The other points you gave are almost all explained by cutting to fit the movie in a respectable time and/or to make it more appealing. There may be more, but think of it that way : if the difference is big enough to be mentioned in a reliable source, then it might be suitable for inclusion. Just make sure it is not only trivia. --Stroppolotalk 05:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, all the other articles are this detailed, so I was just trying to help...I really think the most important one is #7-I'm sure Harry wouldn't have just stood there in the book. I'll see if I can find a source. --Glimmer721 (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Difference section are considered trivia unless they are accompanied with sources and with explanations why they were changed from the source. BOVINEBOY2008 01:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

...Okay, so what would I be looking for as a source? --Glimmer721 (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
An interview with someone involved in the making of the film explaining why the change was made would be a great source. Doniago (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there is more cut from the book, including:

1. Non-verbal spells. Harry vs. Draco in the bathroom scene show this in the film but no explanation is given as to how they learn it. Hermione is also the first of her classmates to master this magic, showing once again how she is the brightest witch of her age and sets up her power for Deathly Hallows' end battles. Yet this set up is mysteriously absent from the film, not allowing the build up nor payoff of Hermione's character arc in the end.
2. Learning to Apparate/Disapparate. Dumbledore gives Harry his first time Disapparating and then Apparating to the seaside cave. Then when Dumbledore is weakened, Harry must Side Along Disapparate for the first time with Dumbledore back to the Astronomy Tower, after only experiencing the magic once, and showing great skill first time enough to Side Along Apparate with precision. Then in the next film the core trio can do this skill effectively. Again, no explanation is given.
3. Snape taking over the Defense Against the Dark Arts class. The build up is set from the first film for this to happen, then when it does in this film, it is not shown, meaning once again no payoff for the fans. A big anti-climactic letdown.

Please add these to this section. Wufan10304 (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As discussed above, please provide reliable secondary sources for the information or do not add it to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The opal necklace

One of Malfoy's attempts to kill Dumbledore. It should be mentioned in the article.83.7.166.138 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Tom Riddle's mother's ring. Not Marvolo Gaunt's

In the film, Dumbledore says that the ring belonged to Tom Riddle's mother. Not Marvolo Gaunt. 86.130.115.252 (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (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: 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) 02:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince_(film)/Archive_4&oldid=1136787577"