# Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2

With regard to these changes - can you explain why they are better than the existing text?
Thanks.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Another reversion without rationale here - please stop your editwarring as you're now at 3RR. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
If you think about it neither of those wordings are clear enough. Either due to the need for brevity or because of knowing too much about the plot already, that wording has failed to explain in a way that would be more meaningful to someone who might not be so familiar with the story. Say what you can see.
Snape gave Harry his memories? How did he do that? Snape tells Harry to take his tears to the Pensieve, and from the tears Harry can see Snapes memories. -- 109.77.219.141 (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I made an attempt to rephrase this to be clearer, and although there is probably room for improvement I think I did make the wording better without making the plot section any longer.[1] Hopefully other editors will try to keep this change (or write a better version) if the plot section needs to be reverted again for some reason. -- 109.77.219.141 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Harry potter and the Deathly hallows part 2 deserves a wikipedia page about box office records it broke back in 2011. It is one of the biggest release of this century and it broke almost every major box office record at the time of release. It deserves a wiki page. Star wars 7 and Endgame also have one. 
(ps: I know this isn't the best place to discuss this but I don't know where else I can do this discussion) 223.229.250.95 (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

it is now in drafts 92.236.253.249 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey! The avengers movie was released in 2012, months after the release of HP8 therefore, its record ( fastest to 1 billion) wasn't tied with The Average. I think it should be corrected in wiki page. Thank you! 223.229.250.95 (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The Numbers have an individual budget for Part I and II "$125 million." If someone can source it for me, that'd be highly appreciated. Thanks!
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Harry-Potter-and-the-Deathly-Hallows-Part-I#tab=summary
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Harry-Potter-and-the-Deathly-Hallows-Part-II#tab=summary DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Parts 1 & 2 were filmed together on a budget of $250 million, and it is obvious that The Numbers has just split the joint figure. However, I would say that is misleading because the $125 million does not reflect the effective cost of the film i.e. the cost of many things is common to both films and there won't be an exact split. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Harry Potter beyond the awful views of the series' creator, but apparently Fernan1254 has attempted to classify this movie as an epic film. Is this accurate? Should it be put in? I don't know, but I'm attempting to start a discussion. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This happens often in films of this nature. Most times it is added because it is considered a term of praise and, as the Wikipedia article on it says, The usage of the term has shifted over time, sometimes designating a film genre and at other times simply synonymous with big-budget filmmaking. However, this is to be considered a genre as any other genre, and per WP:FILMGENRE, only the main genre is to be included in the lead section. Exceptionally, when many genres may apply, reliable sources must be provided to justify the inclusion of more genres, showing that two (or three) genres are attributed to the film in equal measure. This is not the case here, and if it were, the editor who wants to add the genre must be the one to provide the sources that show that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 is equally described as a fantasy film and as an epic film. —El Millo (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Disputes related to genres happen so often that there's an essay dedicated to it and a specific set of warning templates (from {{Uw-genre1}} to {{Uw-genre4}}) to those who add unsourced and WP:UNDUE genres. —El Millo (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 is currently categorized as a children's fantasy film despite its rating of 12 in the UK, PG-13 in the USA, 12 in Germany, 12 in France's home video release, and M in Australia. These ratings from these major countries at least heavily restrict access to children to just one age, and at most remove the demographic entirely (Australia). These ratings are consistent with non-children's blockbuster franchises such as the MCU, Star Wars films after Attack of the Clones, and Jurassic World. Even disregarding the rating system, the film has more mature content than the Harry Potter franchise's first, second, and third films. Philosopher's Stone to Prisoner of Azkaban are accurately categorized as children's films and children's fantasy films due to their PG age ratings worldwide. This film, alongside its predecessors until the Goblet of Fire, should not be categorized as children's fantasy films due to their global restricted access to children, as well as added mature material. Theonlytman2 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe any of those ratings (including Australian) forbid children from viewing the film, only that in some cases they have to be accompanied by an adult. That's hardly "heavily restricting" access to children.
It's Harry Potter. Obviously aimed mainly at kids. Barry Wom (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Harry Potter is for kiddies (up to teenage), along with adults of low reading/viewing ability.  That is hardly news. MapReader (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
A franchise's primary demographic doesn't inherently make a singular title a children's film. Michael Bay's Transformers is consistently rated for teenage audiences despite its source material being tailored to children. Theonlytman2 (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
If we're going by the Motion picture content rating system article, children can freely access the film in the United States via MPAA standards. However, the British, German, Australian, and French do require parental accompaniment for minors to watch the film. You could argue children still have access and would therefore be a children's film, but that could be applied to R rated films in the US, which are unanimously agreed to be not children's films. Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a film that was marketed to teenagers and young adults, it was rated 12+ by Common Sense Media, and it is rated more consistently for non-children's blockbusters across the world. Theonlytman2 (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Also, I would like to add by "heavily restricting" access, this refers to ages 0-11. With 12 being the only pre-teenage age to be able to freely access the film, this heavily restricts the demographic as the remaining ages require parental accompaniment to access the film. Removing the demographic entirely would be something like Australia restricting access from ages 0-14 without parental accompaniment. That works similarly to how R rated access works in the United States, where ages 0-16 can't access without parental accompaniment. Theonlytman2 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Australia restricting access from ages 0-14 without parental accompaniment
I don't believe that's correct. The M rating is only advisory. Barry Wom (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Rechecked Australia's rating. It seems to be split between M and MA 15+. It seems I mistook MA 15+ as this particular film's rating. But even with that set in stone, it is still consistent with the United States and United Kingdom's intermediate age ratings which typically aren't considered children's films. Perhaps there should be consistency guideline for what's considered a children's film. Spectre, which is both an American and British production, is rated PG-13 and 12. Wikipedia has no children's film category for it, and it was a film marketed independently of age. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 & 2 follows similarly in age rating and content to most 007 films. Should both intermediately rated Harry Potter and 007 films be considered children's films because of the 12 rating or should they both not be? Theonlytman2 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You clearly can't determine whether or not a film is a children's film based solely on the rating. Barry Wom (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
According to you, how would this film be a children's film? You have yet to provide any content revolving around the film itself, that would make it a children's film. It's not rated with any children's genre on Amazon, Apple, Fandango, Microsoft, Vudu, or YouTube. They're primarily Action, Adventure, or Fantasy. It is given an intermediate age rating on Common Sense Media. The existence of other intermediately rated films like 007 is a consistency reference for those to acknowledge films not made for kids but are given an intermediate age rating. In the children's fantasy film category, this 12+ rated film is being placed alongside elementary material such as Tom and Jerry, Smurfs, and Barbie. Content-wise, this is far more similar to intermediate age films than the elementary material that the category is composed of. Besides the age rating comparison, the film has restricted access to children, was marketed for older audiences, and it contains mature material not found in elementary rated Harry Potter films. This film is not a children's film. Theonlytman2 (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Look, if you want to use other Wiki articles to support your stance, I can do the same - such as this taken from the Child article:  The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as, "A human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." This is ratified by 192 of 194 member countries.  You may think you're correct, but clearly nobody else does.  Credit to your passion, but choose another fight.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
1. If we were to apply your logic of Wiki source, would you therefore say almost every film is a children's film? Ted? IT? Scream? Those are suitable for 17-year-olds in their home country's ratings, so according to your application of sources, those would be children's films? I presume you would agree with me and film stores that those are not children's films. Like Barry Wom, you have yet to provide why this specific film is more akin to children's films like Smurfs than intermediate age films like 007.
2. "You may think you're correct, but clearly nobody else does" Ad populum fallacy. Just because y'all hold an opinion in masses doesn't make it right. Everyone once believed the geocentric model, but that didn't make them right. Theonlytman2 (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
And now we're into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, possibly with a detour past the land of WP:STICK for a pitstop.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Whether something is objectively right or wrong isn’t WP’s concern, and hence not our concern.  WP’s policy as an encyclopaedia is to reflect the balance of reliable sources, as established by a consensus of its editors.  Right or wrong doesn’t come into it. MapReader (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)