Talk:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian Coulson not in cast list[edit]

Why is the film's main antagonist excluded from the cast list, given his importance in the film? I tried to add him, but my edit was reverted and I don't understand why. Will someone please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohdear15 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

In the middle of the plot section everything kind of turns into very bad writing. This is my first comment on anything on Wiki so I hope I am not being too forward or stepping on toes. It's just that when I looked this movie up in conjunction with the other articles that part was like a massive stutter. --Sarah511 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah511 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list[edit]

Is it really necessary to have a cast list for on the movies' pages? We already have one on the main Harry Potter page for all the films.

As was seen when the Fat Lady was re-cast, the same actor might not play a character in all films. Actually it would probably be better if the cast list were moved off Harry Potter onto a separate page, say Harry Potter cast. --Phil | Talk 08:15, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Cat list[edit]

I think the list is useful. In the infobox it doesn't show who plays what and it's nice to be able to see that Snape is played by Rickman. So, I shortened the infobox because not that many people were the stars... they were big actors in the movie... but not the stars. Does that sound alright? gren グレン 04:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, they don't mention any of the talented felines that appeared in this film!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.45.152 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Mrs. Norris is played by the young and talented Whiskers. Millicent Bulstrode's cat is played by Emma Watson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.47.58 (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Trivia[edit]

I heard last night, two bits of trivia which I will include in the trivia section later today once I have re-watched the film to verify. 1) When Hagrid rescues Harry from Knockturn Alley if you look in one of the shop windows you can see a set of harry potter books on display. 2) When Harry enters Dumbledore's office, there is a portrait of Gandalf above the door off to the right. Like I said I'm going to watch the film again today to see if this is right and if so i'll add to article. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 05:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC) On hold till I find out where the kids have hidden the DVD! Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 22:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm anxious to see what you find! Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One additional piece of trivia about Lockhart. Although this does not happen in the book, and is even impossible with Lockhart's current state of mind, we see a scene at the end of the movie, after the credits where a new book by Lockhart, "Who Am I?" is shown in the Flourish and Blotts window, with Lockhart's moving picture on the front cover —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.152.152.233 (talk) 18:39:43, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

A question[edit]

If Richard Harris died in October, why is he in parts of the movie that were made after his death?

It was not made after his death, he is in the movie, the shots were filmed before he died and there is a new actor in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film). -- Cbrown1023 15:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some short scenes were reportedly computer generated for Dumbledore. The tech exists, didn't Steve McQueen star a whole movie recently, having been dead for 25 years?

Title music[edit]

Can any one confirm if the famous Williams's HP main theme is from the russian song Katyusha? 212.108.200.69 20:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of silver screen subliminally included?[edit]

I heard a well-respected film critic say on radio that HP2 CoS movie is actually full of famous historical film references, from Casablanca to Gone with the Wind, from Waterloo Bridge to North-by-Northwest. He said Columbus did that because he was upset that nobody took him and the HP1PH movie seriously.

Is this allegation true? Is there a detailed list of such homage references available? 82.131.210.162 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowling cameo?[edit]

In the scene where Ron and Harry run into the column while trying to reach the magic railway track, we see a lone blond woman standing on the platform staring at them in puzzlement. She looks like J.K. Rowling and I wondered if the writer was doing an uncredited cameo appearance here. Does anyboy know whether this is true or not?

About the "mudblood" insult cited above: in the book neither Harry nor Hermione are familiar with the word when Malfoy first uses it; either Ron or Hagrid explains it to them afterward. Thus the failure to react actually made sense. The movie may have cut a subsequent scene where they DID react angrily, giving the misimpression that the insult did not matter. CharlesTheBold 01:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the book as well, but I do recall the movie Hermione being the one to explain that it meant "dirty blood" and that it refered to Muggleborns as, well, second-class citizens or worse. So she did know what it meant in the movie. As for the cut scene, that would be just a pity; but the fireworks should have been in the scene where it was first used by Malfoy. Kilyle 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cast list vandalized[edit]

thhere is a line after the cast list of them all being bisexuals and some stuff after that. i trust that is not part of the article but an attempt at vandalism.

A wiki article or a review?[edit]

Has anyone noticed that there are parts of this that sound more like a movie review? "The plot becomes somewhat convoluted at this point in the movie." ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Malfoy saying "Avada. . ." after losing Dobby?[edit]

After Harry tricks Lucius Malfoy into freeing Dobby near the end of the film, it sounds like Lucius is starting to invoke the Avada Kedavra curse. This isn't in the book (the Avada Kedavra spell isn't described until the fourth book in the series); if anyone can find a decent reference, it might be a nice bit to add. evildeathmath 16:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes He was about to say that Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's eyes open while fighting the Baskilisk? Did Gildroy Lockhart survive?[edit]

After seeing the movie, I saw Harry's eyes really opening while halfway fighting the snake, according to book if you look at the snake you freeze. How come the derectors never saw that? By the way I saw Gildroy wake up! Please answer!

Posted by Noblekay357

Hi! I think once the snake was blinded it was safe to look. It was not looking at the snake that killed you but rather it's deadly gaze, and it was blinded before the fight started. Gildroy Lockhart is in fact alive, but he has lost his memory. In fact, Harry meets him again in the Order of the Pheonix in St. Mungo's, but this was unfortunately cut from the movie.

MISTAKES![edit]

Dobby took Harry Potter's sock but I saw dobby drop it! hello derectors I am in 2nd grade! Listen to these mistakes/j Harry saying just because" after dueling Malfoy Harry's eyes open while fighting the snake

Harry beig na jek to malfoy Lockhart woke up Moaning Mrtyle turning invisibe and givng hary and egg Dumbeldore saying "free verse" backwards Ron covering his leg and Herminoe crying That is all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16.66.46.2222 (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from the book[edit]

What about that ghost party of ser Nicolas? it's not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.238.148 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on?[edit]

Okay... PERSON who is two lines above me, I have some complains: 1. Who cares about Ron covering his leg? 2.The person above you already said that Harry's eyes open, but acording to the book Harry was squinting! 3 Hermione WAS crying 4 I played every time Dumbeldore said something backwards, and he DID NOT say "Free Verse" backwards. 5. You SHOULD learn how to spell! 6. Dobby did not drop a sock. 7. Next time tell us something we want to hear!

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.46.229 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music Situation/Remove Conrad Pope's Credit[edit]

Why are we crediting Orchestrator Conrad Pope? There is no reason to. We should save his name for the soundtrack page. Also, he's not the only orchestrator for the first three Potters, seriously, why don't we just credit every single individual who was associated with the music? The music is by John Williams and no one else, why should we credit someone who didn't write a single piece of music for the film, but only arranged it? My opinion, remove his credit and relocate it to the soundtrack page, because if there isn't a credit for Pope on the Soundtrack page, why should there be a credit for him on the film's page? ThatsGoodTelevision ThatsGoodTelevision, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Change in Cast List[edit]

See [1]. Evil Genius77 (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Theatrical Version/Extended Version runtime comparisons in template.[edit]

Do not delete the Theatrical Version/Extended Version running time comparisons in the template! It is listed on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Ultimate Edition DVD Gift Set. This information is 100% accurate and verifiable on the lower right-hand corner on the back cover of the slipcase. There is a 13-minute difference between the two, so do not delete this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.200.162 (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errors on Gilderoy Lockhart[edit]

Since i can't find anything about this anywere, i just ask here...

One thing i realized while watching the movie again. Ron and Harry watch the scene after Ginny has been abducted into the chamber. Gilderoy leaves and AFTER that, Minerva says that Ginny was the victim. Harry and Ron get into Gilderoy's room, and Ron asks "What about my sister?" And Gilderoy just answers something like "I am very sorry about that!"... About WHAT? How does he know what is wrong with Ron's sister? Minerva was pretty much whispering, Only the nurse and maybe Dumbledore and Snape heard who the victim was. Now that i think even more about it... Why did he not just ACT like he was preparing to enter the chamber, and tell maybe Snape, (Dumbledore is not mean enough) that they must have been out of their rooms at night AGAIN!? Also... HOW is Minerva the ONLY one who knows who is in the chamber? How is she able to see who got kidnapped, but the others have to ask HER? Did she see her getting dragged into the chamber? Probably not, since she doesn't know where the entrance is...

And the other thing i read a few times without a fitting answer while searching for the thing above... Gilderoy seemed to know what the monster is, without anyone telling him (i think only Harry and Ron know what it is at that point).

That guy REALLY seems to have either some awesome fortune telling skills, or some DARK secrets XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.69.89 (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

According to the Manual of Style (WP:FILMPLOT), plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. We are already well in excess of 1,000 words, so adding details is a terrible idea and will be reverted. Please see WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. Those recent edits are also poorly written in terms of grammar and clarity. Mezigue (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 15:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B Class[edit]

This article was seems to be stuck at C class for many years. Only the criteria "Referencing and citation" was not met. As of 2020 the article does seem to be fully referenced, and in my opinion there isn't anything missing a reference.

While think the article is still far from approaching "Good article" status as it lacks detail, depth or breadth, but what is has so far is good enough to call B class I think. If anyone disagrees that this article does not yet meet the standard of a B Class article what changes do you suggest? -- 109.79.83.56 (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objections, and no apparent gaps or omissions in the referencing, I've upgraded the article to B class. -- 109.76.215.67 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improvised dialogue[edit]

Jason Isaacs commented on Daniel Radcliffe's maturation as a young actor during the behind-the-scenes, citing a moment of ad-libbed dialgoue. Their improvised exchange ended up featuring prominently in the trailer of this movie. Can someone please explain why this information is not worth including on the page? There is a lot of precedence of film pages containing similar information. (see: Midnight Cowboy, The Empire Strikes Back, The Warriors, Dr. Strangelove, The Third Man, El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Ghostbusters, Gladiator, Jaws, You Only Move Twice, Airplane!, Iron Man, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Aladdin, Tombstone.) - Count3D (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered you on my talk page. —El Millo (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo: I appreciate your responses but I'd encourage others to chime in here as we've gone back and forth quite a bit on your page but appear no nearer to a resolution. - Count3D (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy the discussion we were having here and I'll notify WP:FILM for insight here. —El Millo (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly explain why you consider the improvised dialogue in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, featured prominently in trailer, is not worthy of inclusion on the page? There is a lot of precedence of film pages containing similar information. (see: Midnight Cowboy, The Empire Strikes Back, The Warriors, Dr. Strangelove, The Third Man, El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Ghostbusters, Gladiator, Jaws, You Only Move Twice, Airplane!, Iron Man, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Aladdin, Tombstone.) - Count3D (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, just because they're included somewhere else it doesn't mean it should be included in this case, whether the other cases are right or wrong in including the information. For example, Iron Man talks about how much of the film's dialogue was improvised, which seems to be a very defining aspect of the film. The Empire Strikes Back talks about the "I know" line by Ford, which, according to the article and based on multiple sources, became one of the more famous lines of improvised dialogue in cinema. Aladdin also talks broadly and succinctly about Robin Williams improvising many lines and characters. In comparison, your edit included one dialogue which isn't particularly famous, its inclusion in the trailer isn't relevant, and you even included the lines in their entirety, which is very much WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and overly detailed. This improvised couple of lines doesn't merit a mention. —El Millo (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo: Will grant it overuses the full quotes. No issue trimming that. Your assessment of "right", "relevant" and "defining" are too subjective. Opinion of merit aside, it does not change that it is true, accurate and unique and offers more insight and context into its content. It is both sourceable and factual, a piece of verifiable information offering insight into the creative process making the movie. Jason Isaacs' thought it was worth mentioning in his interview because, in his own words, it demonstrated the maturation of Daniel Radcliffe as a young performer, growth in his abilities and his character, in his most well-known role. It is notable that a creative decision, made up on spur of the moment, on the day of filming, ended up being used as the finale moment in the principal marketing of the movie. Similar use cases appear in the articles of Gladiator, Airplane!, Ferris Bueller's Day Off and Tombstone. - Count3D (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is trivia, every film has improvised lines, so it's not unique. As I said, something being in another article doesn't mean it should be in this one, either because that other article is wrong or because it's different from this one. Gladiator talks extensively about various different problems different people had with the script, changing and rewriting lines. Airplane! talks somewhat about a line that was features in AFI's top 100 iconic lines in #Reception, and in #Casting it addresses concerns one of the actors had with one of their lines, which in my opinion is also being given WP:UNDUEWEIGHT here. Ferris Bueller's Day Off refers to a line that a First Lady of the United States paraphrased in a speech. Tombstone mentions a scene being ad-libbed by an actor. The first three of these are clearly notable for different reasons, the first being a whole bunch of disagreements and problems with the script, the second being a recognition by AFI, and the third being its paraphrasing by the president's wife. The fourth one is similar to this one, a bit of trivia which probably shouldn't be included, but at least that bit of trivia adds to the notion of its paragraph that the director was striving for as much realism as possible, so its inclusion could be justified. This thing you are trying to add is just isolated trivia, just a small detail for one scene, which isn't a defining characteristic of this film or its production nor something that this film has been particularly recognised for. —El Millo (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo: It is unique enough to this film and adds meaningful depth to the readers understanding of both filming of this movie and its most significant cast member. Mere trivia wouldn't have elicited a pointed acknowledgment by an important co-star. Judging an accurate and verified fact subjectively isn't excuseworthy when there's approximate cross-examples in many movie wikis. - Count3D (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was mentioned by Isaacs doesn't automatically mean it's worthy of inclusion, just that it's a fact available to the public. If it hadn't been mentioned by him it wouldn't even by an available piece of information in the first place. So no, a mention doesn't make it important. It doesn't add to the understanding of the filming because it's not a particular quality of this film, as it was the case with Iron Man. You're just assuming trivia wouldn't have been mentioned by an actor, but most anecdotes from the film set are trivia, which doesn't mean it isn't interesting or that it's worthless, just that it isn't important for the whole picture. Two of the examples you provided are close to what you're trying to do here, and both have more justification to be in their respective articles than this one. —El Millo (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo: Your definition of "trivia" is too broad. It doesn't have to be "a particular quality of this film" to add understanding. Not every article does. If every film article applied that standard, they would look very different and be less informative because they are losing context. Subjectively judging what facts should be available to the reader still robs the reader. In removing this fact, you are robbing the article, of, as you put it, part of "the whole picture" as it pertains to the making of this movie, its lead character/star and the insight of one its principal antagonists. - Count3D (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not adding context for anything and this isn't helping understand anything about this film or its production. We as Wikipedians always judge what seems important, otherwise we'd include any fact about anything there is, but Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. There is so much information, especially about films, that is not relevant to a Wikipedia article, actors' favorite lines, for example. They are known facts, but not relevant for a Wikipedia article. Pieces from the set the actors kept, known facts but not relevant. So no, just because it is known doesn't mean it should be included. You keep insisting on the info as related to Radcliffe, but you didn't include anything about Radcliffe in your edit. You're talking about a brief ad-libbed bit between two characters and two lines of dialogue. Look at these articles: [2], [3]. See how many little moments where improvised, and how barely if any of them are relevant. This happens in films. Actors improvise, some things are kept, some things are not. How does this particular moment stand above all those other improvised moments? —El Millo (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo: You're stating an opinion as fact while removing actual facts. You removed insight into an organically developed scene which featured two prominent characters, including the most important character in the whole Harry Potter franchise, played by a successful actor in the onset of his career, a scene that ended up being featured in the film's primary marketing. Your linking to those article about the scene only bolsters its notability. It doesn't have to stand above, it stands all the same, each of those moments could be added to their respective pages. - Count3D (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there significant third-party commentary on the dialogue in question, whether on the scene / dialogue itself on its merits as a line or on the significance of it being improvised dialogue, beyond the simple fact of "it was improv!"? If not, then it is trivia and should not be included. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the diff where Count3D tried to add this detail. Screenrant is an adequate source but I wouldn't say it was a good source, and the referenced article calls it trivia (indirectly, see the URL). Screenrant appears to be quoting a documentary, but the associated Youtube link is already dead, so it is not clear if that documentary was of any particular significance. It would help if this was coming from other better sources. Perhaps there is some possible way this could be rephrased or put into a context that seems less trivial but I'm not seeing it either. -- 109.78.205.134 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current Box Office Mojo gross[edit]

The film's current Box Office Mojo Gross has been updated to $925 million. [4] Something doesn't seem right about that especially when you look at the grosses from the recent re-releases. Should someone contact the website and ask them about this? And1987 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend checking the appropriate section at WP:BOXOFFICE. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Media Effects[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SMBaek (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bstuger (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Chamber_of_Secrets_(film)&oldid=1219455996"