Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)/Archive 1

message: Taken from http://garyoldman.info/
"According to Gary's manager (D.Urbanski), we don't know yet if Gary will participate in the next Harry Potter Movie.. You will be shocked and surprised to learn that at this time there are no plans for Gary to appear in the next Harry Potter film. To say we are puzzled on this side about this is an understatement at the every least! You may feel free to post this info. If the situation changes, I will let you know. There would be no objection from me if fans wrote letters to Warners about this!"
Anybody have actual confirmation on him returning? (Joey26 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose that if he's not confirmed, he shouldn't be in the infobox. I'm going to take him out until he's confirmed. -Fbv65edel 03:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Somebody moved Oldman to confirmed! According to TLC today, Heyman would like to have him back but the deal hasn't been made. Can somebody delete that edit? Fbv65edel 17:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I deleted it. The person who moved him to confirmed took the information from TLC that WB had confirmed Oldman, but an update was made contradicting all earlier statements. Quote: In opposition to earlier statements today, all Gary Oldman's press agents/managers/etc. have denied (to us and HPANA) that he is in any negotiations or confirmed in any way, of which we're of course required to inform you. Again, everyone, chill. It's a long time until he's needed on set, or a deal needs to be worked out. As soon as everyone can come back and say the same thing, credibly, again, we'll let you know. We've been assured Mr. Oldman would love to be in the film from his manager, Douglas Urbanski. And there is no reason to believe WB wouldn't be just as happy. So, if everyone shakes hands all will be fine. Gary is enthusiastic, deals would like to be made, but his agents have stated that he is not yet signed on. -Fbv65edel 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank goodness this is finally straightened out.  -Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Oldman Not Returning? 

message: Somebody added Tony Maudsley to the table as Grawp
(citing )
but that page at IMDb does not support the assertion.
Mugglenet has some information
()
but nothing firm.
When something more appears, we can add this back in properly.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grawp 

message: I have a comment: does anyone know what the new OotP movie potser will look like? When will posters be seen? And why don't they ever make the posters look like the book covers? Does anyone know if this poster will look like the OotP American book cover or similar? 24.255.115.243 16:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix movie posters 

message: Hey, I'm having trouble inserting a Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix poster into Wikipedia from mugglepride.com . . . can anyone help me? --Janet6 10 February 2006 02:07 PM (UTC)
:Well, for one, the image you are trying to insert has not been uploaded. (See the link on the left of every page.) Additionally, I don't think a fan poster taken from a fan site is appropriate for Wikipedia. - Siradia 18:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. Copyright issues. Wait a few more months and an official one will come out. There's no rule that says every Wikipedia article has to have a picture. Hermione1980 22:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I never said every WP article has to have a picture, it's just that it would be nice to see the new temporary poster. Janet 18:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Posters 

message: Hi guys, it's not entirely confirmed, but Leaky is reporting today that the Patil Twins are back, which I believe a little more than the source for John Cleese being back. Expect in a few days' time, though, for WB to confirm this. -Fbv65edel 15:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patil Twins and Cleese 

message: Will people please stop playing silly buggers with the cast list.
It seems every day theres at least three new actors added and removed three times.
Surely the cast list can't change that often.
There are sections for Possible Actors so if theres a dispute, can't they be listed there and left alone.
I understand that a lot of the changes are about actors such as John Clease who is expected to return because of the presence of his character, Nearly Headless Nick, in the book. I imagine the logic behind his name being removed so often is because there's no source beyond the fact his character is in the book and there's no reason for the actor to be changed.
Can't someone just add a line to Expected To Return explaining that this is why there isn't a source and tell people to leave it alone.
It's just a farce to keep flicking back and forth like this, I suspect it to be the makings of an Edit War.
In short, stop playing silly buggers with the cast list.
'tin 02:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably seeing reverts going on because of additions made without citation. Basically, if someone comes in and edits the cast list (or anything else in the article) without providing evidence to back up their assertion, it's subject to immediate reversion. I mean, take a look at Harry Potter's edit history sometime, there are times when 20 edits will go by with no net change to the article because it's all vandalism or fannish speculation. We're interested in verifiable facts, anything else is likely to get toasted. Also, just a note, but it might be nice if you'd consider adjusting your signature so it read as your actual username. Thanks, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast List 

message: Hey, this is my first post ^^ (I just needed to say it... Yeah, I know I suck..)
Anyway, I wanted to know if anyone here has anything about Charles Hughes, the guy who'll be young Wortmail... Thanks!
Darth Angelus Potter 22:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Hughes - Peter Pettigrew 

message: No idea why, because he's been in IMDb for months, but Jason Isaacs himself said he is not yet sure if he's back for this film. See Empire Online News. The quote is, "Meanwhile, we spoke to Jason Isaacs to ask if he'd be back as Lucius Malfoy. "I hope so - you'll have to ask David. I can't bear the idea that somebody else would get to wear my Paris Hilton wig, but you never know." -Fbv65edel 21:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isaacs 

message: Do we really need citations for such things as the director of the film and the screenwriter of the previous four films in the opening paragraph? I think that it does not need to be cited that David Yates will be directing OoP, nor that Steve Kloves wrote the previous four – this is such general information that I don't think citing the source (IMDb) is necessary. However, if this is Wikipedia's rule, that's fine. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User removed citations again, so I placed a 24 hour block. I have also enacted a restriction upon the user with regards to this page. User: 72.129.123.139 is hereby restricted from editing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) in any way until User posts to either User talk:72.129.123.139 or this discussion page to discuss the content removal. Unless such a post has occured, any edits to this page made by User: 72.129.123.139 may be immediately reverted, and User: 72.129.123.139 may be blocked again. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Evilphoenix. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 18:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I've placed a three hour block. If the behavior continues I will block again for longer. This appears to be a static IP so I dont have issue with blocking for long periods. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User removed citations again, so I placed a 24 hour block. I have also enacted a restriction upon the user with regards to this page. User: 72.129.123.139 is hereby restricted from editing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) in any way until User posts to either User talk:72.129.123.139 or this discussion page to discuss the content removal. Unless such a post has occured, any edits to this page made by User: 72.129.123.139 may be immediately reverted, and User: 72.129.123.139 may be blocked again. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Evilphoenix. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 18:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[April 01]] [[2006]]

message: It says here at Leaky that Jason Isaacs is returning for Order of the Phoenix. Apparently he said so in his interview with Xpose magazine, but it seems that there is no copy of the interview online. Is this to be believed? Should we put him under the confirmed section now? 66.66.245.85 15:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isaacs is returning... 

message: From JKR's diary, she mentions: "Michael Gambon was always taller than me, and very lovely he looked in his new robes, too." Just with y'all's approval, I'm going to move him to confirmed. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 16:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gambon 

message: The supposedly "confirmed" release date of this film is neither authentic nor authoritative.  All links trace back to gossip, rumors, and speculation on the HPANA, with absolutely nothing that can be attributed to anyone at Warner Brothers.  The only sources for a "confirmed" release date are the HPANA itself, and other HP and entertainment fan sites.  What we have here is such a vast amount of fan and entertainment world speculation that is reinforcing itself, that it has reached critical mass, which makes it "self confirming".  This is not encyclopedic.  This is speculation.  The Wikipedia's standards for authenticity are supposed to be higher than the fanatical "first one to post a date wins" web sites.  Here are the exact quotes from HPANA:  
*Earlier, sources told us the date was targeted but that Warner Bros. had not absolutely committed to it. Targeting a release date is not uncommon, as it gives the studios and their competitors a chance to stake a claim for opening weekends (and who wants to go up against a Harry Potter movie?). In many cases, a targeted date becomes the official date.
*Please note that Warner Bros. has made no official announcement, so please treat this as a rumor till confirmed.
*It would seem that many entertainment sites, including Rope of Silcon are jumping on the bandwagon and announcing the release date for Order of the Phoenix as July 13, 2007. Again, we are still awaiting confirmation about this and will be sure to let you know once we have found out anything.
It may well be that the movie will be released on July 13th, give or take a week or two, but since Warner Brothers has NOT announced a release date, we are depending on fan speculation and rumors as the basis for fact.  This is not encyclopedic, and is not proper for the Wikipedia.  I think we are going to need a discussion and ruling on this.  My view is that the Wikipedia can only post "2007", until Warner Brothers officially and publically anounces a release date.  If they indeed announced a "target date" of July 13, 2007, then let's have a link to that press release, and post it as a "Target Release Date" - and not "Confirmed" as everyone seems to believe. --T-dot 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (CCed from Talk:Harry Potter) I also find it interesting that IMDb, which is arguably more reliable than fan sites, posts an entirely different release date altogether. It's still not an official release date, though. I'd like to know what IMDb's source is. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it is not just Hpana that lists this date. Leaky and MuggleNet are also reliable sources, and they are reporting the same thing at those same links. As we said when talking to User: 72.129.123.139 on his talk page, if something is reported, we'll link it here. It may end up proving to be false, but with this amount of support from three fan sites which always provide reliable info and are in touch with WB, I think leaving up the July 13th date is the only choice right now. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 13:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...which always provide reliable info..."?  Oh really? Since when?  How many retractions and backsteps have they posted this month?  What happened to all the vehement speculation about 07/07/07?  If anyone dared to doubt that date a week or two ago, they would be shouted off the internet.  If you carefully read ANY of those fan speculation and entertainment web sites, NONE can quote any official statement from Warner Brothers or any other other authoritative source.  The ONLY sources provided are speculative fan sites and entertainment sites, which admit that it is just a rumor, which they "confirmed" somehow, but they don't say how.  They use words like "confirmed", but they have no source other than each other.  They link their reference sources back to some other speculative source that mentions "speculation" and "rumors" and "possible target release dates" that nobody has come up with any traceable proof of back to the official source.  It is a circular argument that is assumed to be true simply because "everyone says so".  I do not dispute that July 13th may be the official internal Warner Brothers Target Release Date for the time being, but I have seen these long range target release dates move many times, especially when there are production delays, re-editing, scenes to be reshot, union strikes, and yes even conflicts with other major releases.  I've even seen Trailers released to the theatres six months ahead of release, with what proved to be an incorrect release date; so that nowadays most trailers only say something like "summer 2007" or "July 2007".  I strongly believe that unless we can get an official Warner Brothers press release that states that July 13th is the official Target Release date, then at best all we can say is "summer 2007".  Furthermore, if Warner Brothers does call July 13th an official Target Release Date, then that is exactly how the Wikipedia should phrase it - not "confirmed" as everyone else seems to be insisting.  My understanding is that the Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, requiring traceable proof back to official sources, and with much higher standards - not a "first one to post a date wins" speculation fan mirror site. --T-dot 14:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: According to the Warner Brothers page, even though MGM owns some of their films and/or vice versa, WB has distributed the Harry Potters. I don't think this or any of the other movie pages should read MGM as the distributor. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 04:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WB or MGM? 

message: Since Grawp scenes are underway or finished wouldn't is make more sense to move Tony Maudsley as Grawp to confirmed. I mean the scene is underway or finished, and Grawp is one of the characters in that scene.ForestH2 23:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because Grawp scenes have been filmed doesn't mean that Tony Maudsley is going to be his voice. For all you know, I could end up voicing Grawp. I may actually be Tony Maudsley. LOL, just kidding. No, anybody could end up voicing Grawp, Tony was simply a rumor. His connection to Grawp doesn't mean he has any connection to Grawp scenes being filmed. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grawp 

message: I haven't heard any news about Katie Bell or Alica Spinnet being casted. Are they going to be cut?ForestH2 23:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they were "cast" for the first 3 films but we certainly didn't hear any news about them. In fact, I barely remember seeing them for anything notable besides a few quick shots during Quidditch matches. So, I would say, due to the minor status of these characters, no news means no news – whether they be cast or not. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qudditch Team 

message: Look at the refrences. I can't see any below #19. And, Tiana Benjaman has been confirmed. Know anything about that?72.129.123.139 14:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Confirmed" entry for Angelina Johnson / Tiana Benjamin reference citation has been corrupted, and it is cascading that damage to all the following entries.  Trying to "fix" it now...  --T-dot 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refrences

message: We've got another anon coming in bound and determined to format this article their own way. Wikipedia's being exceedingly slow, so it's hard to look through all the edits and see what exactly is going on, but I'm seeing a large slew of edits from an anonymous IP, I'm seeing net changes to the article of entries and citations removed, which I don't think is a good thing. I've sprotected the article, please don't unprotect it unless we have determined this anonymous user's motives, and had discussion on this Talk page about what it is with the article they are wanting to change. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh! The poor page was massacred! Evilphoenix, you protected it from non-registered users, right? Because I can edit it. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I only sprotected it, which blocks anons and accounts less than 4 days old. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Forest, be patient. It may turn out that the time you signed up may have been late, and thus you'll have wait until that time. Or it may just take a little while for WP to recognize that you're 4 days old. Happy 4 day birthday! ;-) And by the way, it's really best if you sign with your time stamp (~~~~~ – that's it, just four tildes) so that we know what time you posted, and so it's more proof it's really you there. :-) --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon editing 

message: Brendan Gleeson has been confirmed on now more than just the Leaky Cauldron. Harry Potter Fan Zone has confirmed him. I think that he has been confirmed. Do you think we should move him to confirmed? ForestH2 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should ger more references first before moving him to confirmed. Remember, this film is at its early stages and it would do no harm waiting for more information about this in the coming weeks or months. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gleeson

message: It seems as though the citation for Lavender Brown, "Maybe cut" also reports that casting has finished for Young Snape and Lupin. Even though there in no word should we put "Casting finished though still unknown" or something?ForestH2 00:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that source implies anything, Forest. It should remain as is for now. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Young Snape and Young Lupin

message: Does anybody know if Fawkes is going to be in Movie 5? ForestH2 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know but as I recall he takes on a fairly big role in the Ministry at the end. I believe he was featured in GoF even though he didn't have an enormous part, so I would guess he'll reappear here. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fawkes

message: Do any of you think we should move Kreacher to confirmed? I mean he's confirmed to be in the movie, CGI by TLC.--ForestH2
:Forest, as the page says, Kreacher is confirmed. We can't move him to the confirmed section, though, until we know who is voicing him. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kreacher