Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fbv65edel (talk | contribs) at 15:26, 29 April 2007 (archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPHP

Film Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has an archived peer review.

	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 28, 2005 Articles for deletion No consensus January 25, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Archives
January 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – March 2007

What makes a film from a certain country?

Throw has classified this film as a US film. The producers are from the USA (the producers are actually from the UK too), so I can understand that. However, the film was shot in the UK, the actors are primarily British, the director is British, the plot takes place in Britain… I don't understand why the nationality of the producers prevails over all other things. Perhaps a film can be from two countries? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is that a film that is made and funded by a company based in a particular country makes it that country's film. Warner Brothers has the rights to all Harry Potter films and Warner Brothers is an American company, it was founded in Hollywood, CA and its headquarters are in Burbank, CA. This same argument would apply if Pixar (another California-based film company) made their next film in a foreign country. Most American films are shoot in different locales all over the world, most notably Canada. Do those films make them Canadian? Not at all. The people in front of the camera may not be American but the people behind it (including the companies and money) come from American sources. - Throw 01:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can accept this; however, do you dispute that the films are not British as well? I don't think the "filmed in" is even necessary, just putting US and UK concurrently would be the most proper, I'd say. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute the HP films are British films for the reasons I've already stated. Order of the Phoenix is no more a British film than the Bridget Jones's Diary film. I understand your point of view but I think the fact that Warner Brothers owns the rights for the films take precedence over anything else. The fact that the film is largely (or completely) filmed in the UK is only a fact that should be included in the Production/Film location sections. The reason I brought up Pixar is because they make all their films on computers. The location of their computers wouldn't matter to declare them American films, wheather they were in California or New Zealand. - Throw 04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll contradict myself here and point Fbv65edel to Cinema of the United Kingdom which lists Harry Potter films as 'British'. Just my way to add counterbalance. - Throw 04:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll ask the WP:FILMS to comment on this. I'm not really sure. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

One comment here. Everyone knows The Simpsons right? Would they be considered an American production? Because some are producted in Korea. But anyway, perhaps it would be better to list it as "American/British"? GavinTing 16:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The film is based on a British book about British characters; all of the actors (minus maybe a couple) are British. It's generally filmed over there. It is a British film, and thus should be written in that form of English as well. This is why the first film goes to "The Philosopher's Stone" instead of "The Sorceror's Stone".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Throw on this - the determining factor for the nationality of a movie is the production company, not the cast or the source of the film or the shooting location. john k 00:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If that was the case then every Spider-Man film would have to be listed as a Japanese movie, because SONY is Japanese owned. Heck, since 1989, any film made by Columbia Pictures, TriStar Pictures, or "Sony" will have to be reclassified as a "japanese film". Oh yeah, they acquired MGM also...so I guess that means Casino Royale was the first japanese Bond film. I mean, MGM isn't "part of Sony", per say, but Sony still owns part of the company...so maybe we could say that it's a "japanese/american film"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. That's not how it works. Sony may be Japanese-owned, but Columbia Pictures is an American film company, headquartered in the U.S. The producers of Spiderman and other Columbia movies work out of LA. john k 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Even more strongly - Sony Pictures Entertainment, the subdivision of Sony that runs Columbia, is in fact headquartered in Culver City, California. john k 02:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Pictures is owned and operated by Sony, so that makes them a Japanese film company with a base of operations in America. The fact that the producers of Spider-Man are American is irrelevant, as you don't have to be from the country in which you work. I'm sure there are Americans that work in Japan, and vice versa. Your theory is that if Warner Brothers has a company located in the UK then that would make any film made by that company a UK film? At best, the film should be listed as both an American film and a British film, as everything about the film is British, with the exception being who is distributing it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright guys, cool down abit :) IMO, for that example about spiderman, since Columbia is american, the show is american. This is because sony is more of a behind the scences company that just handles money, not much of the show is handled by them... Anyway, I think this film should just beleft as British/American. Perhaps we should have a vote? --GavinTing 08:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all - we must avoid trying to "reason through" anything based on where the movie was filmed, or the nationality of the majority of the cast and crew, the ownership of the Studios, or who fronted the cash. This constitutes original research. The proper thing to do is find a reasonably reliable source to tell us. The IMDB, which is used rather liberally for sourcing information in HP and other "movies" articles, is just such a source. All the HP films are shown as UK / USA for "Country". PS CoS PoA GoF OotP HBP DH (strangely CoS shows UK / USA / Germany). In any case, it may be notable that UK is shown first in each, so if we must choose only one, then the preferred answer would be the first: UK. Otherwise go with IMDB and undoubtedly other reliable sources: UK / USA. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 09:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've come to this page after a request on the WikiProject Films‎ talk page. The country of origin of a film is generally based on the origin of the countries producing the film, not on where it was shot. However, Bridget Jones's Diary (film) is considered to be a British film, not because it was made in Britain, but because it was made by a British company, Working Title Films. The Harry Potter films are made by Heyday Films (a British company) and Warner Bros. (an American one). So , as T-dot said, it's reasonable to categorise them as UK/US as IMDb does. In this case, I think UK has the edge over US as the cast/crew/locations are mostly British too. JW 10:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with JW. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 11:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be determined is the extent to which Warner is involved. If Heyday is fronting the bill, then it's a British film. Most of the time it's the bigger companies that are paying to distribute it, which is not the same thing as paying to have it made. What needs to be determined is if WB is going halves with Heyday on the production costs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As JW says. I cannot imagine that Heyday Films has enough money to pay for production on the Harry Potter movies without involvement from Warners. If you look at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/companycredits IMDB], you'll see that Warners is listed separately as a production company and as a distributor, so, no, they're not just the distributor. IMDB also mentions 1492 Pictures as a production company on the first three movies. That's Chris Columbus's outfit, and is also American. I would, at any rate, agree with UK/US. john k 16:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, a consensus needs to be reached about this is the primary, because we cannot swap forms of english throughout the article. Simple example, we have some dates of "13 July", and some of "July 13". It's the same thing, but there is no consistency.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Per MOS for variations of English, and a coversation on WikiProject Films, the article should be listed as "UK/US" (UK being first, based on alphabetical order, no bias or priority to either country) and the article should be written in the UK's variation of english, as the film, and its basis, have predominately more ties to the UK than to America.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for sorting this out Bignole. I'll do my best to change the variety of English, but as I am American, I may not see certain differences between UK and USA English, so a British editor should have a look at it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do too much sorting. Another editor told me about the page, and I saw the section on important ties being the condition for which english to use. My being American is also a reason why I didn't impliment any changes, as I haven't the slightest idea what would be correct. Hopefully, someone will come along and see it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Why does "Warner Bros. has confirmed that the film is scheduled to be released in stages, between July 11 and July 27, 2007" have 7 citations after it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified the use of the seven citations. Together, they confirm all those countries' release dates, rather than putting a citation after each country name. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there not one source that can do all that? And why are we listing the released dates for every country? It should be limited to primarily english speaking countries.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean just a general listing of all release dates, I prefer to use news postings that list it, just because the general list doesn't say where they got the information. They may have taken it from another list, which got it from another, and so on, whereas the news sources are independent and based on publishings of the press. And as for the style guideline, I thought that only applied to infoboxes. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

When you start getting into listing every release date for every film, even in its own section, you start bordering on "indiscriminate collection of informatin". As it says in the guidelines, IMDb has the lists already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed non English speaking countries from the list. How does it look now? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Better. Is Puerto Rico a primarily english speaking country? I've never been, and my knowledge of history isn't that large. I know we have jurisdiction over it, but I think it's a spanish speaking country. Anyway, some other things I noticed about the page is the prose, which is a little lacking. Paragraphs, when writing non-fiction, should be at least 4 sentences long. The IMAX info should go with "release dates", and "release dates" should be retitled to "Release". This way it incorporates everything about the release of the film. The rest of the "technical details" should be placed in the lead paragraph of the "Production" section, until you have enough "Effects" information to have a subsection for it. The same goes for "Other media". The score info is best served in the general production section, as there isn't really anything there. Game are considered "adpatations", but since you don't have a novelization of the film, it would be pretty bare at the moment. More info could be found that discusses the changes made to the game, and why (if any). You've all done a great job in citing sources, it's just more of a formatting issue, with thin (1 sentence long) paragraphs and subsections that currently cannot support themselves. It might be better to just remove all subsections in the Production section, and blend them into nice paragraphs, until enough information can be found to expand on the different topics.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, per the guidelines of the lead paragraph, if it isn't in the body of the article then it shouldn't be in the lead paragraph. That said, all citations should generally be in the body, and not in the lead, as the lead summarizes the entire article, whatever is there is going to be cited later.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To address your first point: I'm not sure about Puerto Rico, but it is part of the U.S. which is obviously an English speaking country.

Second: I've fixed up the production section, but left two subsections that were adequate in length.

About the lead: Today's FA, for instance, (The Waterboys) has citations in the lead. I think that, if all the information that is in the lead is also in the article, citing it twice is okay. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw the changes, and it looks better. Still some single sentence paragraphs, but the article can't get promoted to any higher status until it is released, so there's plenty of time to find more information on it. As for the lead, I think it's just generally looked at as redundant citations, at least for instances like citing the writer and the director. I think everything after citation #4 can go into the body, because it doesn't really fit with WikiProject Film style guidelines for the lead, as the rest isn't basic informatin (1st paragraph) or the film's impact (what would go in a second paragraph when it becomes available). That's below #4 seems to be more marketing information, and a brief critique of the film by Rowlings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Filming dates

I think this film was actually finished by some date in early 2007, and it is possible for people to show the theatrical trailer of any movie before the filming is done. --PJ Pete

Well, until you can find a source for this, our cited statement will have to stand. Sorry. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Poster is tagged fairusereduce ?

I don't think the poster, that I uploaded is in high-resolution. The poster size is of medium size i.e. 691 × 1024 pixels. Even WB has released full resolution of 1080 x 1600, which is far bigger than what I've uploaded to Misplaced Pages. So, I think i should remove fairusereduce tag. What do you think guys? Bunty Rocks 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll reduce it so that what appears in the infobox is the same, but when you click it the image page is smaller.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, you seem to have reduced it yourself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the "Voldemort" teaser poster was a clearly illegal one - with an original full size resolution of 1947 × 2877 and 466,222 bytes. I'm reducing it to around 400 x 600 and 42,153 bytes. The purpose of the FairUseReduce tag is to request an administrator to delete the old high-resolution version, as it is not allowable under fair use claims, which claims only low resolution images of posters and such, not full-size full-resolution versions as provided to the press. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed film articles
• Film articles with archived peer reviews
• WikiProject Film articles
• Former good article nominees