The MovieMusic Store shopping cart   |  sign in
    SEARCH  
  • Home
  • Browse Store
    • New Soundtrack CDs
    • Top Sellers
    • Low Price New CDs
    • Used CDs
    • Soundtrack Compilations
    • Score Composers
    • Soundtrack Labels
    • Soundtracks by Year
    • ... detailed search page
  • Store Info
    • Happy Customers!
    • $1 Shipping
    • Accepted Payment Methods
    • Safe Shopping Guarantee
    • Shipping Rates & Policies
    • Our Privacy Policy
    • About Us
  • Help Center
    • My Account
    • How to Order
    • Search Tips
    • Return/Refund Policy
    • Cancelling Your Order
    • Contact the Store
  • The Lobby
  •   Message Boards
      Movie Soundtracks
      Sorcerer or Philosopher

    Archive of old forum. No more postings.

    Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.

    Author
    Topic:   Sorcerer or Philosopher

     Hector J. Guzman
     Click Here to Email Hector J. Guzman
     Oscar® Winner
     

    The thing that bugs me is having to different movies. Well, it's actually the same(Duh!), but having a movie that they refer the rock as the sorcerer's stone and another as the philosopher stone distracts me a little. I have seen both, and that is not really important, but still, hehehe.

    NP. Harry's Wondrous World(Johnny boy)

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 11:19 AM PT (US)     

     Jeron
     Click Here to Email Jeron
     Oscar® Winner
     

    It was the same with the book, Hector. Just a different marketing tactic.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 11:56 AM PT (US)     

     Nicolai P. Zwar
     Click Here to Email Nicolai P. Zwar
     Oscar® Winner
     

    The thing is, I've never heard of a "sorcerer's stone". What's that supposed to be? The philosopher's stone is an ancient legendary alchemic stone turning common metals into gold. But what's a "sorcerer's stone" supposed to be? I still don't get it why they changed that for the US release.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 01:20 PM PT (US)     

     Alwin
     Click Here to Email Alwin
     Oscar® Winner
     

    I read somewhere that Scholastic, the U.S. publisher for the Potter books wanted "Sorceror's Stone" instead of the everywhere-else title "The Philosopher's Stone." because of the reasons mentioned above.

    In Canada, we have the latter, and having read both the American and Canadian versions, there are several minor word changes such as

    "shan't" and "won't". I'm no grammar teacher (yet!) but it's just minor dialect changes... nothing earth-shattering.

    Fred and George rule!


    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 03:32 PM PT (US)     

     Marian Schedenig
     Click Here to Email Marian Schedenig
     Oscar® Winner
     

    quote:
    Originally posted by Alwin:
    because of the reasons mentioned above.

    Uhm, I don't see any reasons mentioned above...? I guess they just considered "Philosopher" too difficult for US citizens. Looking forward to The Master of the Necklaces: The Companions of the Necklace...

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 05:01 PM PT (US)     

     Hasta
     Oscar® Winner
     

    I refuse to comment on this subject because, well, it gets me too angry.

    All these religious freaks (not all religious people are freaks of course, but the ones who take part in this "Potter is satanism/cultish for children" thing are nothing less than, well, a freak) are getting WAY out of hand, and they should be thrown in a firey pit.

    Of course, I don't really mean that...


    Or do I???

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 05:11 PM PT (US)     

     Timmer
     Click Here to Email Timmer
     Oscar® Winner
     

    LOL Marian, it's because faceless wonders consider the U.S. public too thick to understand the word 'Philosopher'...to all our great U.S. friends here on the board...your being sold short by these Hollywood idiots!

    Yeah, I know I didn't need to say that, but you know what I mean.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 05:11 PM PT (US)     

     James
     Click Here to Email James
     Oscar® Winner
     

    quote:
    Originally posted by Marian Schedenig:
    The Master of the Necklaces: The Companions of the Necklace...

    ROFL!

    Kirk, a member of the too-dense-to-buy-anything-with-the-word-"philosopher"-in-the-title-no-matter-how-much-sense-it-doesn't-make U.S. population

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 07:47 PM PT (US)     

     Jennie
     Click Here to Email Jennie
     Oscar® Winner
     

    Hasta,
    I know what you mean...I got into that with my roomie a few weeks ago. Mmm...it's a hard subject. Depends on your own perspective, mostly with your religion I guess. Although she and I have the same religion, different views on "Harry Potter" or "Halloween" or whatever other things.
    This is way off topic so I shall stop.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 08:20 PM PT (US)     

     Lou Goldberg
     Click Here to Email Lou Goldberg
     Oscar® Winner
     

    I think it's probably safe to assume that the word philosopher in our anti-intellectual society would be enough to cost the film box office. It's not that people don't know what it means, it's just that they associate philosophy with boredom and difficulty and abstract thinking that has no purpose in everyday life. Who wants that when you're going to the movies for fun and escape. Sorcery suggests what Harry Potter might be about. I mean would you go see something called 'Harry Potter and a symbol of alchemic change'?

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 09:24 PM PT (US)     

     SPQR
     Click Here to Email SPQR
     Oscar® Winner
     

    'Dude, Where's My Car?' just about says it all.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 09:46 PM PT (US)     

     Lancelot
     Click Here to Email Lancelot
     Oscar® Winner
     

    About what?

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 10:20 PM PT (US)     

     SPQR
     Click Here to Email SPQR
     Oscar® Winner
     

    The price of tea in China. What else?

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 10:32 PM PT (US)     

     Lancelot
     Click Here to Email Lancelot
     Oscar® Winner
     

    Ahhh. Like one of those Zen riddles.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 10:37 PM PT (US)     

     Lou Goldberg
     Click Here to Email Lou Goldberg
     Oscar® Winner
     

    I mean who is Harry Potter anyway? If they really wanted to tell people what the film was about they'd call it 'Fun Warlock School' which is probably how it will be translated in China where they just cut to the chase anyway.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 10:45 PM PT (US)     

     SPQR
     Click Here to Email SPQR
     Oscar® Winner
     

    Harry Potter and the phrase, "cut to the chase", have no meaning to my programming.

    _________________________________

    The movie will probably be a real hit in the prisons over there though, that's a whole 3 hrs not slouched over a Singer pumping out Levi's.

    [Message edited by SPQR on 12-05-2001]

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-05-2001 11:01 PM PT (US)     

     John Zimmer
     Click Here to Email John Zimmer
     Oscar® Winner
     

    I personelly like Sorcerer more than philosepher.

    Np: Harry Potter and the Sorcer...er Philo er SCREW IT!!!

    Jz

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-06-2001 06:51 AM PT (US)     

     perfpitch
     Click Here to Email perfpitch
     Oscar® Winner
     

    Lou's right.

    There's probably no country -- with the possible exception of Pol Pot's Cambodia -- where exists such an institutionalized distrust of, and antagonism toward, intellectuals and intellectualism, as in the U.S.

    As such, it's hardly surprising that the word "philosopher" would send up little red flags in the minds of publishers and film studios. Moreover, "sorcerer" conjures up (pun intended) images of pointy-hatted wizards a la Camelot's Merlin, or Mickey Mouse in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" segment of FANTASIA, while "philosopher" results in images of folks sitting around thinking (hardly an active, energetic pursuit around which you want to build a marketing campaign. As Merlin warned the young king in the musical "Camelot": "Arthur! It's too late for you to be out thinking!").

    Frankly, the alliterative nature of the phrase "Sorcerer's Stone" rolls more easily off the tongue than the British original, and is an improvement.

    What's actually more troubling, however, are the changes in the books' text. When you start changing "shan't"s into "won't"s, you start to rob the language of its essential Britishness, and it starts to sink into an unfortunate sort of prosaic American mid-Atlanticism.

    J.K. Rowling wrote her books for a British readership; the American market to her is just gravy (an almost incomparably rich gravy, to be sure).

    [Message edited by perfpitch on 12-06-2001]

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-06-2001 11:04 AM PT (US)     

     Alwin
     Click Here to Email Alwin
     Oscar® Winner
     

    Marian, I was referring to Nicolai's explanation:

    "The philosopher's stone is an ancient legendary alchemic stone turning common metals into gold."

    I'm not a fantasy or SF reader, so his explanation made sense to me. I do know that the reasons I gave were definitely discussed in the media somewhere. I believe I read it in Maclean's - the Canadian equivalent or Time, or Newsweek.


    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-06-2001 04:05 PM PT (US)     

     Marian Schedenig
     Click Here to Email Marian Schedenig
     Oscar® Winner
     

    quote:
    Originally posted by perfpitch:
    What's actually more troubling, however, are the changes in the books' text. When you start changing "shan't"s into "won't"s

    They did THAT, too!? Oh my, what happened to Hagrid??

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-06-2001 09:33 PM PT (US)     

     James
     Click Here to Email James
     Oscar® Winner
     

    "Sorcerer's Stone" may sound better phonetically, but that doesn't negate the fact that "Philosopher's Stone" actually makes sense. But Perfpitch is correct, the Americanization of the speech is more disturbing. It makes absolutely no sense to have English kids using American colloquialism. Thankfully they didn't push that into the film. For instance, the usage of the word "bogey;" if I remember correctly, the American version of the book uses the word "booger."

    Bloody Americans!

    Kirk, one of such

    [Message edited by James on 12-06-2001]

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-06-2001 09:56 PM PT (US)     

     Hector J. Guzman
     Click Here to Email Hector J. Guzman
     Oscar® Winner
     

    Wicked!

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-07-2001 01:19 PM PT (US)     

     perfpitch
     Click Here to Email perfpitch
     Oscar® Winner
     

    Marian:

    According to Alwin's post, they did it, yes.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-07-2001 01:51 PM PT (US)     

     Marian Schedenig
     Click Here to Email Marian Schedenig
     Oscar® Winner
     

    Flipping mental!

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 12-08-2001 12:14 AM PT (US)     
     

    Old Infopop Software by UBB

    © 1998-2011, The MovieMusic Company