Forum:Millenium bridge collapse is not canon/Archive 1

Several articles state that Voldemort and his DE's destroyed both the Brockdale and the Millenium bridge, but this is not so. Yes, the film used the millenium bridge for a scene, but this is hardly canon. The movies are set 10 years ahead of the books, which is why the Millenium bridge could exist, as it wasnt built yet in the books timeline.

JK doesn't have an alternate universe where the bridge was already up, as I read in one article, which seems totally made up out of nowhere.

The films used the millenium for whatever cinematic reasons they had, but this does not make it canon to the books. Only thje brockdale bridge was destroyed, thats it.


 * Under his wiki's current Canon Policy films are considered to be canon, unless directly contradicted by J.K. Rowling. As nothing in the books/interviews contradicts the attack on the Milennium Bridge, this (as far as this wiki is concerned) is canon. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:08, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Seth, we are following the timeline as set out in the Harry Potter books, yes? Therefore, only something present in that timeline can be considered canon so I think 66.189.125.43 is correct. The Millenium Bridge was built at the turn of the new millenium and so exists outside the books' timeline. Of course, the books extend to the year 2017 by the end of DH, but we are talking about the year 1996 at this point. The Brockdale Bridge should be the only bridge attacked by the Death Eaters that year.--Yin&amp;Yang 08:46, November 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Yin & Yang has a point, Seth. It is contradicted by the books; if we follow the timeline, than the bridge wasn't up. Isn't that enough to be a contradiction? It's an anachronism, at the least. Or does this not count as a "direct" contradiction? Q u i d d i t c h L o v e r Snitch 2.jpg<font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="gold">(My <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color=green>talk) <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color=gold>(cont <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color=green>ribs) |undefined 02:09, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * He does have a point, however, consider this: in Half-Blood Prince Chapter 1, the weather is described as "dismal", with a lot of a strange "chilly mist". However the month of July, 1996, in London was historically sunny with temperatures and rainfall both near average (Source). This proves we cannot consider real-life historical events to be canonical, as the canonical weather in 1996 was "misty", not "sunny".
 * Unlike the 1996 weather, the date of building of the Millennium Bridge is never discussed in any of the books/interviews. Hipothetically, the in-universe bridge might have been built in 1978 and named after Mr. "John Millennium"; we just don't know. As such, we have to consider it canon under the current policy. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 03:05, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

The collapse of the Millenium Bridge is canon, you say, but the bridge was built in 1999, three years after the collapse. It is really not canon then. <font face="Courier"> Tur bo  Golf  10:26, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean Seth, and that is a very good argument but I don't know if it proves the Millenium Bridge to be canonical. Let's not forget that Rowling once pointed out that she was not particularly good at dealing with dates, but we can be sure that she was aware of the Millenium Bridge (while probably not her idea as something to be included in the HBP film) being opened with the beginning of the 21st Century; it's just common knowlege to the British, I suppose. If we can accept London as a whole to be reflective of real-world London, (there is nothing in the books to contradict the structure of the real-world London setting) then the Millenium Bridge, should follow. Now, London in 1996 probably hadn't seen so much as a bolt of the Millenium Bridge that was yet to be built so we can't call it canon if we follow the book's timeline. Does that help? I guess what I'm saying is that the weather and the dates weren't properly considered by Rowling but the setting of London probably was. I don't think the London in the Harry Potter books is meant to differ from the real London at all.--Yin&amp;Yang 11:36, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * While I see your point, I would like to point out something: as much as you look for it, you won't find a street called Grimmauld Place in London. Also, I doubt you would find a department shop under renovation called Purge and Dowse, Ltd in real-life London. These are a few of the several differences between the canonical London and the real-life London. After considering this, it does not seem that far-fetched that the Millennium Bridge already spanned the Thames by 1996 in the in-universe London. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 13:12, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

It's not refered to as the Millenium Bridge in the film is it, is it? No. So for all we know, it's not intended to be the Millenium at all. The bridge was just used to film that scene. Just like the steam engine used for the Hogwarts Express isn't really the Hogwarts Express. Jayden Matthews 14:18, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * The bridge is refered to as the Millennium Bridge during a radio broadcast that can be heard while Harry is reading the Daily Prophet at Treats (something among the lines of "The police is continuing the investigation of the Millennium Bridge collapse") -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 15:18, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad. Jayden Matthews 15:21, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about those differences in the books Seth. I suppose you're right. Still, being a national landmark, we should be able to assume that the bridge is the same in both universes. Afterall, it's the filmakers that employed its use in the sixth film, not Rowling. Just as Buckingham Palace can be seen in Order of the Phoenix, the Millenium Bridge can be seen as a reflection of the world we know. I think your argument is missing something: the filmakers do not see the books and the films as canon we like do in this wiki, so it is almost obvious, really, that they replaced the Brockdale Bridge with something a little more modern. The films are at least 10 years ahead of the books' timeline, so the filmakers would have thought somewhere along the lines of, "Why not use something that really stands out to the Muggles of today rahter than the Brockdale Bridge? An attack on a modern-day famous landmark would strike home, I think". Does that make sense? The filmakers replaced the Brockdale Bridge for timely purposes, so the book should get priority as having the Brockdale Bridge alone, being attacked.--Yin&amp;Yang 21:41, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you on the filmmakers' thought on why to choose the Millennium Bridge instead of the Brockdale Bridge, I do not agree with you when you say that the films are set 10 years ahead of the books and because of that, all events surrounding the Millennium Bridge should be considered non-canonical, though. In fact, I have proof that the films are set in the same time as the books: the Riddles' dates on their gravestone (GoF film) and Draco Malfoy's date of birth on the Black Family Tree tapestry (OotP film). These (almost insignificant) details prove the films are set in the 90s and therefore, the reasoning you have used to consider this particular event non-canonical is not valid. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 22:55, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there some sort of problem with the dates written on the Riddles' headstone in the Goblet of Fire film? I am almost certain there was a degree of controversy there about something (sorry, I can't remember what it was) to do with the filmakers' choice of dates on the headstone. Therefore, it could be that its viability is compromised. Besides that, if the films are set in the nineties, then why is there a Millenium Bridge, modern flat-screen TVs (seen in the Dursley's living room in Order of the Phoenix) and numerous other very present-day Muggle objects? Even the structures and designs of the London buildings and the Muggle, including some witch/wizard students', hair styles and clothing fashions signify a post-2000 period at least.--Yin&amp;Yang 23:27, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * The controversy around the Riddle's gravestone was that "Marvolo" could be read as Tom Riddle Sr.'s middle name (which was thankfully removed in post-production!) and had nothing to do with the dates. Again, Rowling hasn't discussed those specific aspects of Muggle architecture/fashion/technology, so it could be entirely possible for those to be present in the Harry Potter universe 1990s. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 23:42, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Look, when it comes to the Muggle world, all is the same as the real world unless Rowling gives minor or insignificant changes to a setting e.g. Grimmauld Place. That is just a given. To assume that the Millenium Bridge is named for any other reason besides its real-world reasons, is speculation. Major landmarks like that are huge hints that the timelines are separate between the books and the films, regardless of any other minor pieces of information. The pure and simple answer is that the Millenium Bridge's presence in any one of the films is indicative to a 21st Century timeline. Your point about Rowling not mentioning much on Muggle architecture in the books is a perfect example of how she tends to leave in the blanks for the readers to decide. Rowling didn't have to discuss Muggle architecture of the 1990s because it is just common sense to add in the necessary real-world things. If any fans were to rationalise her books' timeline, they would immediately have a clear picture in their heads of what sort of architecture, hair-styles and fashions were common at the time. Rowling doesn't have to re-invent the wheel with the Muggle world because it is the Wizarding World she truly invented.--Yin&amp;Yang 00:49, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. She did not invent exclusively the Wizarding World; as a part of her works, she did also create the Muggle World, as (as I have proven above) there are multiple differences between the Muggle World and reality. As there are several aspects in which the Muggle World is not the same as our real-life world, we cannot make parallels between our world and its literary counterpart. One simple (and true) claim, like "France is a Republic" may not be held true in Rowling's Muggle World, as she never states it. To support it, one can verify that the opposite also happens; a Muggle would say "Grimmauld Place is a street in London" while you and me would most assuredly say it is not.
 * As such, if the Millennium Bridge appeared in one of the films and Rowling did not directly contradict it, the existance of said bridge by 1996 is canon. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 01:15, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

When I said Rowling invented the Wizarding World, I meant she invented her own interpretation of the Wizarding World - the one relating to Harry Potter. I didn't say she created the idea of a magical world itself, please don’t misunderstand. Now, what you mentioned above comes under the title of "minor" changes to the Muggle world. Grimmauld Place is invented because it suits the purpose of the story where as the Millenium Bridge, which isn't mentioned in the books, does not. We very well can make parallels between the real world and Rowling’s Muggle world where ever she has omitted anything contradicting the real world’s versions of events. In other words, Grimmauld Place along with all the other fictional events that occur in Rowling’s Muggle world, are the only exceptions to the real world cross overs. Unless she mentions the contrary, France is a Republic in the Muggle world as much as it is in the real world. I think the idea of the world Rowling created is that it co-exists with our own. In other words, you and I could both exist in her Muggle world without playing any role to the plot of the story while the Wizarding community lives among us in secret. Everything in the Muggle world is parallel to our own unless Rowling contradicts them. So if the Millenium Bridge wasn’t mentioned in the books, then it wasn't built until the year 1999 (just like in the real world), so how could it be destroyed in 1996?--Yin&amp;Yang 02:13, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * You speak of "minor" changes to the real world in Rowling's works. Then, why would not the change in the date of construction of the Millennium Bridge be considered one of those "minor changes"? -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 02:36, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because the Millenium Bridge isn't in the books at all. The Millenium Bridge has no relation to the books and hence doesn't have minor changes in between reality and books. No one said the date of the bridge's building was changed anyway, that is just your, I'm sorry but, speculative theory. Grimmauld Place and the rest of it are constructs of Rowling's books that serve as part of the plot, the Millenium Bridge does not do so in the books. The filmakers just wanted to replace the Brockdale Bridge with something more modern (a fact that you agreed to above), the destruction of the two bridges aren't supposed to co-exist in the Harry Potter universe but overide one another depending on what sort of policy you're looking at. In our case, the books always gain priority over the films and therefore, the book's idea of the Brockdale Bridge being annihilated dominates the film's idea of the Millenium Bridge being destroyed. That is the key reason why the Millenium Bridge cannot possibly be considered canonical.

I honestly don't know how much more detail I can put into this discussion because I feel like I'm just repeating myself. Most of the users involved in this forum seem to agree that the Millenium Bridge is not canon and so the articles saying that it is need to be edited. I will gladly do the honours if you have no further objections, Seth.--Yin&amp;Yang 02:55, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * As I told you once before, an omission is NOT a statement. The fact that the Bridge is not mentioned on the books does not make it less canonical, as nothing in the books contradicts the events surrounding the Bridge's destruction. Why couldn't Voldemort attack two bridges? Is it physically impossible? As for my "speculative theory" about the date of building of the bridge: as the in-universe Bridge was destroyed in the summer (July?) of 1996, it couldn't have possibly been built in 2000. Also, what I've agreed with you above was that the filmmakers thought it would be more effective cinematically to destroy a famous real-life landmark. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 03:10, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstood something I think. I said that the Millenium Bridge was not in the books because you stated earlier that the books' Muggle events and the real-life events are not parallel. You had mentioned that it was possible for the Millenium Bridge to exist and to have been built in the same timeline as the books (1996), but to say that would mean that Rowling must have mentioned in her books that the Millenium Bridge was built prior to the beginning of the new millenium, which does not happen. I am not confused about the policy and nor do I need reminding of it, but the fact remains that the two bridges we are discussing are not meant to co-exist, but overlap. To quote you:

"While I agree with you on the filmmakers' thought on why to choose the Millennium Bridge instead of the Brockdale Bridge..."

The key word you said there was "instead", meaning 'in place of'. That, to me, sounds like you fully agree that the book's version (including the Brockdale Bridge) has been replaced by the film's version (the Millenium Bridge). Let me show you an example of just how the circumstances could have been tweaked in the sixth film so as to allow the two bridges to be canon. If the film showed both the Millenium and Brockdale Bridges being destroyed, then you would be totally right and the Millenium bridge would be canon because it would be clear that it was not replacing the Brockdale Bridge from the book. However, that is not the case. Instead, we have the filmakers' intentions of using the Millenium Bridge as a replacement for the Brockdale Bridge making the two contradicting factors of the universe. This could only mean that the book's version is the dominant one and therefore the Millenium Bridge is NOT canon. Like I said before, most of the other users on this forum agreed with that idea so I have to insist upon changing those articles.--Yin&amp;Yang 03:42, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Rowling's version of the world is not our version of the world. There are innumerable differences, including the fact that, in HBP, the new Muggle Prime Minister refers to his predecessor as a "he". If we were following actual history, then the new PM would be John Major. His predecessor was Margaret Thatcher, a woman. Therefore, the timeline is already acknowledged to divert from actual history. Also, the Hogwarts Express leaves from Platform 9 3/4 at Kings Cross Station which provides a cross country service; platforms 9 and 10 at the real Kings Cross are local services that do not have track that reaches anywhere near Scotland. To assume that the Muggle world in the HP universe is the same as ours is speculation. Towns&mdash;Muggle towns, not just hidden Wizarding communities&mdash;are created, so how can the two worlds be analogous? They can't. Therefore, the Millennium Bridge, as shown in the HBP film, was built prior to 1996 in the HP universe, and destroyed in 1996. It is not the Brockdale Bridge, since the two bridges are different (one carries cars, one carries only pedestrians). Also, there is precedent for items appearing sooner in the HP universe than in ours; Dudley has a PlayStation in the summer of 1994; these were not commercially available in Japan until December 1994, and in September 1995 in Europe. - Cavalier One Gryffindorcrest.jpg( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 09:48, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Cavalier. Okay, I'll start off by saying that J.K. Rowling is the first person to admit that dates were never her strong point. More than likely, she hadn't researched the identity of the Muggle Prime Minister of Britain in 1996 and therefore invented her own. Everything else you mentioned might not be intentional at all. Rowling just wanted to tell her story and so I think she payed less attention to the minor details and more attention to the development of her characters. As for the assumption that nearly everything in the real-world and the Muggle world is not linear being speculation... I don't agree with you there. Wouldn't it be further speculating to say that Rowling's version of the real world is not the same as you are suggesting? Like I have said before, we must assume that everything not mentioned by Rowling about the Muggle world is identical to our own otherwise, how do we know what is different and what is not? It's just simple logic and common sense, guys!

Since Rowling didn't mention anything about the Millenium Bridge in her books (because it doesn't exist in that timeline, I might add), we can't just say that it was built pre-2000! What evidence is there of that? What is there to undeniably prove that the bridge was there in Rowling's 1996 Muggle world? Nothing, this is why that is speculation. What I have explained does not warrant speculation at all because what Rowling doesn't say, we aren't at liberty to fill in. I do know that the Millenium Bridge serves as a replacement for the Brockdale Bridge, so as per policy, the Brockdale Bridge gains priority. What more do you need to know? I'm giving it my all trying to persuade you. I have given the most solid explanations I could come up with so why is this still such an issue?--Yin&amp;Yang 10:24, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

We, are not filling anything in. The films are, which, as our policy states, are canon unless proved otherwise. Jayden Matthews 10:30, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jayden. If Rowling ommits them, then the film events are canon! Rowling never denied it, so following our canon policy the collapse of the Millennium Bridge is canon. Also, when I said "instead" I meant showing the Millennium Bridge collapse on film instead of the Brockdale Bridge collapse because a real landmark would be much more theatrically exiting to see. I never meant that the filmmakers decided to replace Brockdale with Millennium. Claiming that the filmmakers replaced Brockdale with Millennium is erroneous (as the bridge is identified on-screen to be the Millennium Bridge). -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 10:35, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yin&Yang; both are assumptions, true, but holding one to be higher than the other cannot be done. You say we must assume that Rowling's world and ours are identical, when it has been proven through Rowling's own writings&mdash;not the film adaptations&mdash;that they are not. Research is not needed to identify the Prime Minister of England; Margaret Thatcher served the country for eleven years from 1979-1990. Major served from 1990-1997. In fact, Thatcher has been one of our most iconic PMs since WWII due to the crises that she was forced to handle during her tenure in office. We can only go on what has been shown, which is that the canonical timeline does not accurately follow ours. Therefore we cannot assume that events in the Muggle world in the HP universe followed events in our world precisely. As shown in Rowling's own work, PlayStations were in Britain a year before being commercially available in our timeline. I think the thing we have to remember is that it is a fictional universe, and the rules of the real world cannot be applied to it. - Cavalier One Gryffindorcrest.jpg( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 10:45, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Seth, following the policy is exactly what I'm trying to do. I think that I haven't explained it clear enough because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying at all. Replacing the book's bridge with the Millenium Bridge in the film version of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is not a side-along thing. The filmakers just decided to use a different Bridge in the Brockdale's place. Therefore, if we have a bridge on which the same events occur in a book, and a bridge in which the same events occur in the film, the bridge of the book will override the film. Is that making any sense at all? Is that part understandable? I guess the same point covers what Cavalier said as well.--Yin&amp;Yang 10:59, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * If the bridge hadn't been specifically identified as the Millennium Bridge, then I think the argument that it was meant to represent the Brockdale Bridge would have more weight. Unfortunately, it was identified as thus, making both the destruction of the Brockdale and Millennium bridges to be valid canon points. - Cavalier One Gryffindorcrest.jpg( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 11:23, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

But Cav, the fact that the Millenium Bridge was named as such in the film makes no difference to the contradicting information with the book because the bridge was still present over the Thames in London. I mentioned above, (I don't know if you read it) that the most plausible way of defining the bridges as canon would be if the film depicted two separate bridges being attacked on two separate occasions i.e. an attack on both an on-screen Millenium Bridge and Brockdale Bridge. The idea of an attack on a Muggle bridge was just re-interpreted by the filmakers so that the Millenium Bridge was used instead of the Brockdale Bridge. I don't see why that isn't enough support for my argument. It follows the policy perfectly. What more is there?--Yin&amp;Yang 11:49, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * It makes all the difference since naming it makes it a different bridge to the Brockdale Bridge. Its simple. There are two bridges. One is called the Brockdale Bridge, it carried cars, and was destroyed by the DEs (HBP book). The other is the Millennium Bridge, it carried people, and was destroyed by the DEs (HBP film). Two different bridges, both destroyed by DEs. While relocating the attack to a familiar landmark (although for the life of me I don't know why they didn't pick Tower Bridge) was the intent of the filmmakers, it doesn't preclude the fact that they are different bridges that were destroyed, making the destruction of both separate events. - Cavalier One Gryffindorcrest.jpg( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 12:03, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

I think that if the bridges from the two sources, the book and the film, were not used to represent one isolated event (an attack on a Muggle bridge), then the Millenium Bridge would be canon. However, this bridge cross-over is a direct translation (I think would be a good word), from book to film. It really works like any other case in the wiki where the book’s translation onto screen is contradictory according to the policy, thereby giving the book priority. Harry’s eye colour, for example, is green in the books but blue in the films. Even though we are “naming” the eye colours as green and blue respectively, we don’t say that Harry has heterochromatic eyes in this wiki for obvious reasons. Instead, we always state that Harry’s eyes are green. The same applies with this bridge topic. The Millenium Bridge, identified as one bridge, contradicts the book’s use of the Brockdale Bridge and so the latter is said to be correct on its own.

Here is another brainstorm I had that might help clear this up. We should be looking at this entire thing from a specific point-of-view. That is, the view of the Death Eater attack itself rather than its actual target (a bridge). Forget the wiki for one minute; the book and the film agree on one thing, there is a single attack (that we know of) on a single bridge, right? So, all that is left to determine is which of the two versions are most correct in stating which bridge was subject to the attack. It is now that we turn to our policy. Which do you think has the most priority of the two versions?--Yin&amp;Yang 12:38, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, was it impossible for Voldemort to attack two  different, independent and totally unrelated  bridges? I would say it was not. As for Harry's eyes, that's a very different matter, as the individual in question is the same (Harry Potter). As for the bridges, nothing tells us that they are the same, in fact they are very distinct bridges (the Brockdale Bridge was a traffic bridge, whereas the Millennium Bridge was a pedestrian bridge; the Death Eaters split the Brockdale Bridge cleanly in half, while the Millennium Bridge was rocked back and forth until it broke loose of it piers; just to name a few differences). Also the film does not state once that was only one bridge attack; it just shows us one. As for the absence of mention of the Millennium Bridge in HPB Chapter 1: as nothing in the books/films gives us the precise date of the attack, it may very well have taken place after the events in The Other Minister. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 13:16, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, did you read through the second paragraph of my last post carefully? I stated that the attack is the key distinguisher of canonical events, not the bridges themselves. As for the Harry Potter eye colour, what’s the difference? The bridges are under two separate categories as are the colours of two sets of eyes. The fact that the eyes belong to Harry makes no difference. If that still doesn’t convince you then here is another example. Bellatrix Lestrange was shown to set Hagrid’s Hut aflame in the sixth film, yet this directly contradicts the book’s events which rules out anyone but Thorfinn Rowle as the Death Eater to set fire to Hagrid’s Hut. Bellatrix and Rowle are two different people, much the same way the Millenium Bridge and the Brockdale Bridge are two separate bridges, yet they are said to be involved in the same action that occurs in both the book and the film i.e. the burning of Hagrid’s Hut. This is the same as the two bridges sharing the same fate (give or take a few minor differences such as cleaving versus unbalancing). However, this wiki states that it was Thorfinn Rowle who destroyed the Hut, not that Rowle did so with the help of Bellatrix. So why can’t the Brockdale Bridge be the dominant side?--Yin&amp;Yang 13:35, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * They are two, different, distinct, and separate bridges. It's not a case of book canon trumping film canon like the burning of the hut, because they were separate events. Events from the film do not affect the destruction of the Brockdale Bridge because they do not refer to it in any way. The film simply adds another event to the DEs terror campaign. The Brockdale and Millennium Bridge destructions should be treated as separate events. - Cavalier One Gryffindorcrest.jpg( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 13:46, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are two distinct bridges, but they both directly interfere with eachother's continuity in the universe because one is directly based on the other. In other words, the use of the Millenium Bridge in the film was inspired by the original idea of destroying a bridge from the book. Besides, Rowle and Bellatrix are also two separate, distinct beings so what is the difference?

Quote: "Events from the film do not affect the destruction of the Brockdale Bridge because they do not refer to it in any way."

In response to that I say that the film also doesn’t refer to so much as the presence of Rowle at the Battle of the Astronomy Tower, does that make the destruction of Hagrid’s cabin entirely the fault of Bellatrix? This example fits in perfectly with the discussion, and the outcome follows the policy so all in all, this discussion most definitely involves “a case of book canon trumping film canon”. The singularly mentioned attack itself is the main cue, here. The specific bridges can then be looked at from the perspective of the policy.--Yin&amp;Yang 14:15, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are two distinct bridges, but they both directly interfere with eachother's continuity in the universe because one is directly based on the other. No they don't interfere with the continuity of the other since they are separate distinct events, perpetrated on two, separate, distinct bridges. One is the Brockdale Bridge, the other is the Millennium Bridge. They are different. If, for instance, the Millennium Bridge had been destroyed on screen and then refered to as the Brockdale Bridge, then you might have a case for that line of argument, but it wasn't. It was specifically called the Millennium Bridge, thereby creating a new event that is only linked to the Brockdale Bridge because of the similarity of the event. - Cavalier One Gryffindorcrest.jpg( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 14:55, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Like I said Cav, the attack is the focus here. The attack itself is what the filmmakers chose to include in the film. The film is an adaptation of the book, so the filmmakers used the Millenium Bridge as the site of the attack as opposed to the Brockdale Bridge. This is exactly the same as them using Bellatrix to burn down Hagrid’s Hut in place of Rowle: Same event, different setting (or in the Hut’s case, different individual causing the event). Tell me, how is the bridge destruction different from the Hut’s destruction in between book and film? To say that two different bridges were attacked is to say that Bellatrix and Rowle burnt down the Hut, that Bellatrix and Gibbon cast two separate Dark Marks above Hogwarts, or that (something from the second book and film) Hermione and Dumbledore uttered the line, “Fear of a name, only increases fear of the thing itself”. Each presents the same action, undertaken by different people or in the bridges’ cases, undertaken on different bridges. This should help reinforce my point: The Millenium Bridge is to the Brockdale Bridge, as Bellatrix Lestrange is to Thorfinn Rowle. Does that explain why the bridges being different, as you say, actually supports my argument rather than disproves it? The two bridges do “interfere” with each other through the book and the film, just like Bellatrix and Rowle.--Yin&amp;Yang 03:52, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell me, how is the bridge destruction different from the Hut’s destruction in between book and film? How are they different? Because they are two separate bridges! The attack is not the focus - you are attempting to combine two events that do not need to be combined. By specifically naming the Millennium Bridge, the filmmakers have created an event that is separate from the Brockdale Bridge incident. The hut burning incident has nothing to do with this; if the books state that Rowle burned down the hut, then he did it. Bellatrix's actions in the film do not figure into the event, except in the form of BTS notes in the relevant articles. Nothing in the books state that the Brockdale Bridge was the only bridge attack during the summer of 1996. Since nothing contradicts it, the attack on the Millennium Bridge - built in the HP universe several years before it was built in ours - is a separate incident that occurred in the same period as the destruction of the Brockdale Bridge. - Cavalier One Gryffindorcrest.jpg( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 08:38, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Like another certain debate we had, it seems as though neither one of us will yield. If you want to settle this as badly as I do, can I suggest another vote? I know you probably are quite sick of these by now but I don't see another option because I'm thinking that the answer has a lot to do with perspective of what we see as canon or contradictory i.e it's a very grey area. I say that the attack on the Millenium Bridge is just an adaptation of the same attack in the book, only with a different bridge. You say that because the book omit’s the idea that another bridge attack could have occurred, that that means the film’s bridge, the Millenium Bridge, is canon. See how perspective plays on this? I think that we both have provided strong arguments, but we can’t really be sure of the intentions of the filmmakers when they decided to include the Millenium Bridge unless we were to ask them ourselves. It’s time for community action. What do you say? As before, I promise that whatever the community decides, I’ll go along with and I’m sure you will too.--Yin&amp;Yang 09:11, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a vote is necessary, as this falls under the jurisdiction of our canon policy. The film refers to the Millenium bridge as the Millenium bridge, which separates it from the Brookdale bridge. The book doesn't contradict the existance of the bridge, or the attack upon it, thefore both are canon. Jayden Matthews 09:49, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * A voting is inappropriate, as this falls under the terms of the current Canon Policy which has been already voted upon. Unless anyone can present direct and verifiable evidence from Rowling's mouth to contradict this particluar event, it is deemed canon in this wiki. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 16:41, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

I thought you might say that about the voting so let's push on with this. Despite what you may think the policy refers to in this case, you cannot deny that to say the Millenium Bridge was destroyed in 1996 is stretching the Muggle-to-Real world universe a little too far. Was it you Seth, who said before that the filmmakers may have intended the bridge to be named after a person/founder/designer in their universe? I just think that to say so is giving the filmmakers too much credit. Don’t get me wrong, I think the films are overall fantastic, but they do have their flaws. The films sometimes contradict themselves and create gaping inconsistencies throughout the series. My thoughts are that we are working with one of these inconsistencies which explains why this whole debate is so difficult to decipher. I mean for one thing, the films have a very post-2000 look judging by the modern technology seen, the hair and fashion styles used and even most of the car models in Privet Drive don’t look much older than 10 years. However, the fifth film, as you pointed out before Seth, states that Draco Malfoy was born in 1980 (seen on the Black Family Tree) which places the film series in the same timeline as the books. I think the filmmakers have confused their dates, making the timeline very out of place. I also really do think that the films are supposed to be set around our current decade, even though certain given dates contradict this. Honestly, I doubt that the filmmakers really meant the viewers to calculate the 1990’s era from the briefly seen dates on the Riddle Grave shown in the fourth film, or the even harder to see date I mentioned above in the fifth film. If anything, Draco’s year of birth may have just been a way of paying homage to the books (a small wave to the fans, if you will). This is why I think the Millenium Bridge seen in HBP really belongs in our time; the fact that the bridge was named as the Millenium Bridge only emphasizes this.

Think of it this way, whenever Rowling destroys or otherwise needs to use something in the Muggle world, she simply invents a new place or structure (e.g. the Brockdale Bridge). I think she really tries to prevent the Muggle world-Our world cross over from being separated too far apart. The general idea is to make it plausible for readers to say that there is nothing in the real-world that disproves the existence of the Wizarding World. As if Hogwarts is actually real! Obviously, I don’t believe that it is, but you get the gist, right? I suppose this is what I’ve been meaning to say from the beginning, I just got too caught up in replying to other comments directly to word it properly.--Yin&amp;Yang 06:13, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

This may seem like a double-whammy here, but a thought just occurred to me. Cavalier, I recall that you asked before why the filmmakers didn’t opt for the Tower Bridge for the scene of the DE attack. That is a terrific question but I’ll take it further: Why did they opt for the Millenium Bridge? Of all the bridges in London to choose from; of all the bridges in England itself, why did they choose that particular bridge to represent the attack described in the book? What about the Millenium Bridge makes it significant? The answer is that it is modern! It is a timely bridge in the sense that it almost shouts “post 2000 period” the instant it is visible. If the choice for the Millenium Bridge isn’t enough proof to indicate the true timeline of the film, then I don’t know what is. It’s so obvious! I don’t know why it took me so long to realise this.--Yin&amp;Yang 12:58, December 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * You do have a point. However it is not technically impossible to have a 2000s-like bridge in the mid-1990s, now is it? Again, we just don't know. For instance, it is possible that the architect might have invisioned a ultra-modern bridge with very futuristic lines for his time. As you see, the fact that bridge has a modern feel to it doesn't necessarily rule out that she wasn't there by '96. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 20:54, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

No, not technically impossible but it his highly likely that the intention of using that particular bridge, known around the world as the one built to mark the end of the 20th Century, was used to emphasise a modern-day timeline. I noticed that you basically responded to my last (much shorter) comment, I was wondering if you read the (very, very long [sorry about the length]) one I wrote before that? In it, I explained in more detail why I think the films are based in this current (yet, quickly ending) decade. Just think of my last two comments as one while you’re reading.--Yin&amp;Yang 00:01, December 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. Sorry about that (hadn't noticed the other comment). As much as I agree with you in several points you've made in the longer comment (such as that you call "a small wave to the fans [of the books]"), we still have to follow the wiki's guidelines: as the films settle that the particular scene we're discussing takes place during the summer of '96 and the books do not directly rule out the existance of the Millennium Bridge in any way (remember that the canonical London [and world, for that matter] is a bit different to the real world!), we have to consider it canon under the terms of our current canon policy. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 00:44, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

On that, you have a point. However, this is the whole reason for identifying the time-setting of the films. If we agree that the films are set in more modern times, then the Millenium Bridge cannot be canon at all. While the book does not state the possibility of the Millenium Bridge existing, the book series has proved that Harry Potter is set in the 1990s. In that case, how can an article say that the Millenium Bridge collapsed in 1996 if the film is set beyond the year 2000? It makes no sense whatsoever. The only conclusion, we follow the book’s version in which the only Bridge destroyed in 1996, was the Brockdale Bridge. In the Behind the Scenes sections we could add, “In the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the Millenium Bridge is used in place of the Brockdale Bridge due to the filmmakers’ choice of creating a more modern setting for a bridge collapse.” Something along those lines would be fine, wouldn’t you say? It still follows policy – infact, not to do so would defy the policy altogether because right now, the articles regarding the Millenium and Brockdale Bridges are completely disregarding the timeline of the books (which is what the wiki abides by).--Yin&amp;Yang 02:27, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

The films do follow the timeline of the books. As established by Draco's date of birth on the Black Family Tree. Jayden Matthews 08:20, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Read back a few posts of mine (hint: the longest one). I explained about that date, and Seth agrees with what I said.--Yin&amp;Yang 12:33, December 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on a minute! I've agreed with you that the filmmakers care less for timeline consistency, not that the films take place in this decade. Both the films and the books state that the action takes place in the 90s. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 12:39, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that, Seth. I didn’t mean to jump to conclusions. I just thought that by agreeing to the “small wave” line, that you followed the same logic as I did. Still, I don’t see why you didn’t. I mean, if you don’t think the Malfoy date of birth was relevant or consistent, what keeps you from thinking that the films are based in this decade? Surely the filmmakers’ choice of the Millenium Bridge is clue enough, not to mention the countless references to a contemporary timeline as shown in the architecture and fashion trends. What else is there to suggest otherwise? Again, I apologise for the misunderstanding.--Yin&amp;Yang 13:51, December 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * No harm done! =) Also, I don't consider Draco's date of birth to be irrelevant; merely minor, to the film (and, however, of extreme importance to this discussion). As the timeframe of the films is clearly identified by that minor detail, the canonicity of the Millennium Bridge is proven. Let me use another means of reasoning: if the film showed a (fictitious) bridge collapsing into the Thames, and said bridge was identified as "Bridge X", was it canon under our canon policy? Yes, because the books do not contradict the existance of "Bridge X". As for the Millennium Bridge, we have to follow the same proceedure: no direct contradiction, so it is canon. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 21:00, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

That date in question, as I mentioned above, was so difficult to make out that the filmmakers’ couldn’t have really had their hearts in it, if they were trying to indicate a true time setting. Also mentioned above, is that the date is very likely not meant to have been extrapolated upon to reach the conclusion of the series being set in the 1990s. If the filmmakers really wanted to show a date, they could have easily slipped it in somewhere more obvious. The Draco birth date probably is just homage to the books and nothing more. Besides, one barely noticeable date doesn’t detract from the fact that everything else about the films points to a modern decade. The very choice of the Millenium Bridge says everything! They could have gone with any other bridge, a bridge that might have been around for seventy years but no, they targeted one whose reputation and very name suggests something built after the year 2000. This is a lot more noticeable than a tiny, inscribed date on a piece of wallpaper, and so it is far more obvious in telling the viewer immediately what timeline the films are set in. It really is just common sense, and I know that you have that, Seth because I can tell that you are a very intelligent guy. So, if the timeline is post-2000, then the Millenium Bridge cannot possibly be canon to a 1990s chronology of the books. Just remember, “Why that particular bridge?”, and the answer should just flow from there ;).--Yin&amp;Yang 00:24, December 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * The date might be as minor and insignificant as it gets, however, it still has to be taken into consideration. As for the choice of the Millennium Bridge, I'm sure neither of us can answer that without speculate, as there are multiple other possible reasons to choose that particular bridge (the filmmakers might have wanted a footbridge to show the people panicking instead of just cars [or any other kind of dramatic effect]; the bridge being surrounded with famous London landmarks, such as the Tate Modern and St. Paul's Cathedral; etc.). Besides, you are making the assumption that in the books the Millennium Bridge was not built until 2000, while nothing ever publicly stated by Rowling supports that. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 01:44, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

If Draco’s birth year is indeed merely meant to pay homage to the books (which it most likely is), why should it be taken into consideration? If it isn’t actually a part of the film, i.e. plays no other role besides relating to the real-world, then it cannot be considered as a source of information. Besides, it is not speculation to suggest the film timeline being set in the 2000s if there are so many direct references to the decade throughout the series anyway. There are countless hints to support this and the choice of the Millenium Bridge is just one of them. If something is as plain as the nose on your face, it ought to have higher priority than something as insignificant as that particular date on the film version of the Black Family Tree.

As for the book not referring to the Millenium Bridge, there is nothing wrong with assuming that the rest of the Muggle world (the parts of the Muggle world that aren’t slightly altered in the books) is the same as its real-life counterpart. Think about how many things remain the same in the books whenever Rowling describes England. Everything is still there (e.g. Surrey, the city of London, and the rest). Whatever Rowling changed was purely for the purposes of her characters and what they interacted with. We can’t state that the rest of the Muggle World may or may not be different because Rowling doesn’t mention it. We are given the minor changes by Rowling and we simply have to assume that everything she doesn’t mention about the Muggle world is the same as our own. Otherwise, her world may not even be on Planet Earth! I don’t recall anything in the books that specifically states that the Wizarding and Muggle communities inhabit Earth as a planet, but we assume so because of all the likenesses between her world and ours. This is the same situation. Just think about the differences in Rowling’s Muggle World and our own, what do they all have in common? They are all constructs specifically designed to support her characters, not to mention prevent the probable legal arguments that could have broken out if Rowling had used Margret Thatcher or her successor as the 1996 in-universe Prime Minister. She makes minor changes to accommodate the story, the rest is the same.--Yin&amp;Yang 04:02, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this forum, and the debate, since the beginning (and have added a comment). All of you have presented really good arguments, and you all have great points. But, this is now just becoming an (extrmeely long) argument that's never likely to end, since, as Yin stated, it's a matter of perspective. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Yin; the Millennium bridge collapse is not canon. But I'm not going to try to convice anyone here. What I'm really trying to say is, this debate is never likely to end, since it's a matter of perspective, and both of you are right, depending on how you look at the problem. So, I'd suggest that this be dropped, and you put in a line in the BTS section of the Millenium bridge article that goes something like : The collapse of the Millenneum bridge is considered not to be canon by some because of it is thought to have been used instead of the Brockdale Bridge in the films. No offecnce to any of the users who have made great contributions to this debate, but I think this is becoming a pointless argument that's going to go nowhere. <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color=gold>Q <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="green">u <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="gold">i <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="green">d <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="gold">d <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="green">i <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="gold">t <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="green">c <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="gold">h <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="green">L <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="gold">o <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="green">v <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="gold">e <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="green">r Snitch 2.jpg<font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color="gold">(My <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color=green>talk)  <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color=gold>(cont <font face="Script MT Bold" size=3 color=green>ribs) |undefined 06:25, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

I’m not offended at all, Quidditch Lover. In fact, I agree with you, especially the part about that line added to the articles regarding the argument itself =D! However, if Seth or any other user still wants to continue this debate, I think it wise to start a new forum page altogether because this one is way too long. Admittedly, I would prefer the articles discussing the 1996 Death Eater attack to only relate to the Brockdale Bridge, but I am willing to follow Quidditch Lover’s suggestion.--Yin&amp;Yang 07:41, December 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * One point: We are given the minor changes by Rowling and we simply have to assume that everything she doesn’t mention about the Muggle world is the same as our own. No. We. Don't. We record what information we are given. Say, for instance, the city of Plymouth is never mentioned in the novels. Do we assume it exists in the HP world? No, because it is never referred to. Rowling's fictional world, while based on our real world, should not be confused with it. Do not assume just because something is true in the real world, it is true in the HP world.
 * Also, the "not canon" mention in the Millennium Bridge article would not be allowed as it is worded. It is, in itself, a speculative statement. "Thought by some" is opinion, which violates the NPOV policy of the Wiki. You would need some type of qualifying source, or reword it sufficiently to avoid speculation. - Cavalier One Gryffindorcrest.jpg( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 11:48, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Another point: "Think about how many things remain the same in the books whenever Rowling describes England. Everything is still there (e.g. Surrey, the city of London, and the rest)". That is an erroneous statement. As referred by me earlier, the city of London in the books presents several differences to the real-life London. And if you call that minor, plot-related changes to the real world, check out this: the county (which is a relatively large area, unlike an insignificant footbridge) of Brookshire, is added to Rowling’s world, changing both the history and geography of the United Kingdom, without any plot-related reasons. Also, several new cities and towns are added to the canonical world, such as Lowercroft, Chipping Clodbury, Millburn, etc. without refered plot relevance. As proven, assuming that the unmentioned parts of Rowling’s world are the same as our real world is pure speculation, as said claims are not backed up by any canon source. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 13:04, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

[Sorry Quidditch Lover, I know I agreed to finishing this debate but…] If the Muggle world isn’t predominantly based on our own, then how can we be sure that anything could make sense as we know it? What type of world do you suggest we’re dealing with if the earth’s history has been so drastically changed? Look, Rowling is creative and a genious in many peoples’ eyes (including my own), but I doubt her mind traversed into such deep and unfathomable voids of the like we are discussing now. We should look at this from the author’s perspective rather than her universe, and this much is clear: Rowling made changes to the Muggle world only to suit her characters’ purposes and to advance her story. She wasn’t trying to make an entire “new real-world” world altogether (even though she may have inadvertently done so by creating fictional places). To be true to this argument though, this is not the definitive point.

The fact that the sixth book doesn’t mention the Millenium Bridge’s existence is irrelevant; all that really matters is the timeline. Like I said, I have very strong reasons to believe that the film timeline is ahead of the books by at least a decade and if you still don’t agree with me on that, just pretend to for one moment. So, even if the book stated that the Millenium Bridge was built in or prior to the year 1996, the attack itself occurred, as shown in the film, sometime after the year 2000 which means that the article is incorrect in stating that the attack occurred in 1996. Even more to the point, by 2000, Voldemort had been dead for approximately two years and his power over the Wizarding World had subsided, so how could he have ordered an attack on the Millenium Bridge then?--Yin&amp;Yang 15:06, December 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Any fictional work creates a new world regardless of the intent ... that's why its called a fictional world. Anything can - and does - happen. Rowling created the HP universe. She added new people to it. New places, counties, and events. It is a new world. But to say that this new world is exactly the same as ours without direct evidence? No, this cannot be done. In fact, there is more evidence to suggest it deviates from ours in several places which have been already stated above (without even entering in the addition of the Millennium Bridge incident). Since the world is not ours, we only go on the information that has been presented to us. The timeline of the books is 1991-1998. The Millennium Bridge in the HP universe, regardless of its status in the real world was built prior to, and destroyed in, 1996. - Cavalier One Gryffindorcrest.jpg( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 15:51, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

No offence Yin, but I'm afraid this is a "like it or not" situation. Our canon policy (which has been voted on twice) says the atack on the Millenium Bridge is canon until directly stated otherwise by J.K. Rowling. Your just going to have to live with it, because, this discussion is going nowhere slowly. Jayden Matthews 16:25, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

I’m not arguing the policy, just putting forth an argument as to why this particular object (the Millenium Bridge) is not canon. If the film timeline is in the 2000s, then by the policy, the M. Bridge is definitely not canon.--<font color=blue face="Rockwell" size= 3>Yin & <font face="Rockwell" color=turquoise size=3> Yang <font color=darkblue face="Rockwell" size=3>Talk to me! 08:30, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

The film's are not set in the 2000s. Draco's birth date, however minor a point it may be establishes that the films are set at the same time as the books. Jayden Matthews 08:39, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Draco’s birth date does provide somewhat of a clue to the timeline, but it is heavily outmatched by the modern-day features seen in all the preceding and succeeding HP films. The technology, clothing and hairstyles, and the architecture of the Muggle buildings are all indicative of a 2000 decade. Let’s not forget the very presence of the Millenium Bridge that points more blatantly than anything else, towards the same answer. The filmmakers had several hundred choices of bridges to choose from, but they selected the one with the timeliest reputation – the fact that it was named “the Millenium Bridge” on the Muggle radio is another dead giveaway. What makes more sense, following a (very homage-like) date barely visible and shown in only one film, or following the obvious timeline laid out from the very first film, up to and including the sixth? It’s a matter of balancing priorities and I know which one I’m sticking with.--<font color=blue face="Rockwell" size= 3>Yin & <font face="Rockwell" color=turquoise size=3> Yang <font color=darkblue face="Rockwell" size=3>Talk to me! 08:54, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

you said earlier that Rowling's world is the same as our own despite the extreme differences. and now you say that the clothing worn by people in the films mean that they are set in the 2000s, despie the fact that the films have been established to have taken place at the same time as the books. I'm sorry, but your arguments completely contradict each other. Jayden Matthews 09:29, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your last comment was rather vague, Jayden. What do you mean when you say that the two explanations I’ve provided “contradict” each other? I said that the films are set in the 2000s, which has nothing to do with the books and therefore nothing to do with my other argument stating that Rowling’s world is almost parallel to ours. Whether or not the films and the books have been established as sharing the same timeline remains to be seen. That is what I’m trying to focus on here. Also, the clothing was only part of the reasons behind why I strongly believe the films to be post-2000 (an idea which I am not alone in thinking; check out one of the very first comments left on this forum by an unregistered user above).--<font color=blue face="Rockwell" size= 3>Yin & <font face="Rockwell" color=turquoise size=3> Yang <font color=darkblue face="Rockwell" size=3>Talk to me! 13:44, December 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, our world cannot be compared to Rowling's (and the films') fictional world, for the reasons above discussed. The smallest difference makes the fictional world different to our own and, although they are very similar, cannot be considered the same. And, let's face it, the adding of events, cities, towns and even counties to her world, are not exactly small changes, are they? It just is not our world. For example: why don't we have an image on the Buckingham Palace article? Because (albeit it is unlikely), Buckingham Palace might be a entirely different structure in the Harry Potter world.
 * As for claiming that the films take place in this decade is completely speculative (and false) as the timeline is established in Order of the Phoenix (film), so you should cease our argument over the films' timeline. Our goal in the wiki is to list information that is presented to us. As nothing in the Muggle buildings has a “built in the 2000s” label on it, I don't see any impossibility for them to be in London in the 90s. Sure, it might be unlikely, but not impossible, so it is considered canon. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 16:15, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Seth, this is an honest question, is there anything in the policy that states that a date can only be established by physically written characters (i.e. numbers and words)? If not, then my timeline argument is still valid. That particular date of Draco’s birth appears in only one film, yet modern-day overtones occur throughout all the other films (including Order of the Phoenix). We agree that the films have many contradictions, right? The timeline’s confusion is just as much a contradiction on the filmmakers’ part, so how are we supposed to decide which of the sources of information are most reliable? The once-mentioned date, or the several timely implications shown in each and every film? The choice of the Millennium Bridge, as opposed to any other bridge, is the most prominent clue to a modern-day timeline. Think of it this way, if the date of Draco’s birth wasn’t given in the fifth film, how would we decide the timeline? By using what is at hand to approximate a date i.e. the timely features of the films. Therefore, what the films infer about the timeline is just as important as numerical figures and should not be disregarded. We have to decide which the most reliable source of information is when it comes to the films.

My reasoning is that if we follow the date laid out for Malfoy’s birth year, we are led to categorise all the modern-day features of the films under a timeline that doesn’t truly make sense. If we stick to the films’ timely features as a blueprint for the films’ timeline, then we can maintain the timely features of the films within a suitable context. This is a matter of perspective (and partly opinion) because, as far as I know, please correct me if I’m wrong, there isn’t anything in the policy that outright states the priority of numbers over inferences or vice versa.--<font color=blue face="Rockwell" size= 3>Yin & <font face="Rockwell" color=turquoise size=3> Yang <font color=darkblue face="Rockwell" size=3>Talk to me! 16:55, December 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Originally, the Brockdale Bridge article made the highly speculative claim that the Brockdale Bridge was located where the Millenium Bridge is located today, and that the Millenium Bridge was built to replace the Brockdale Bridge after it was destroyed. Now that edits have been made to distinguish the two structures from each other, I don't have as much as an issue as I did earlier, although I still think this is one instance in which it simply isn't possible to neatly weave together book-canon and movie-canon. The books are obviously set in an alternate timeline, given various anachronisms that have already been pointed out (Dudley's PlayStation, etc.), but, in this case, it strikes me that we're the ones creating an anachronism, by our marriage of book-canon to movie-canon.


 * Is the pedestrian bridge over the Thames referred to as the Millenium Bridge in the film? In a Daily Prophet headline, it's referred to as simply "bridge," although that may just be shorthand used in the headline due to space limitations. <font color="Green">&#x2605; <font face="Times" color="green">S <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">a <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 17:14, December 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Starstuff, the bridge is apparently referred to as the Millennium Bridge over a radio broadcast when Harry is in the cafe at the train station at the beginning of the film. If the bridge hadn't been named, then I would be inclined to agree that it was a version of the Brockdale Bridge, but since it was named, it creates a distinct and separate event in the HP timeline.
 * Yin&Yang, your timeline argument is not valid. You cannot disregard stated dates simply because you feel that the films take place in a different timeline. The date was included, so your comment about what would happen if it hadn't been included is null and void. It is a date that agrees with Rowling's timeline, therefore it shows that the film timeline - despite anachronisms which can be explain by the fact that it is set in a fictional world - is concurrent with the book timeline of 1991-1998. This one date, which links the written novels timeline to the films timeline, takes precedence because the date is one that Rowling originated, not the film makers. Rowling stated Draco was born in 1980, which the film makers included in OotP. - Cavalier One Gryffindorcrest.jpg( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 17:18, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

We have established that Rowling's world is not our own, therfore the concept of what is modern day in reality cannot be applied to the Harry Potter universe. As has already been pointed out, Playstations were released a year earlier in the Harry Potter universe. Thefore the same can be, and is true for those things that you have pointed out: fashion styles, car models, architecture etc. So I'm afraid that your idea of establishing a time frame based on those things cannot be done. A time frame based on an actual date that has been given to us - that can be done. Jayden Matthews 17:21, December 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it was originally the filmmakers' intent to move the timeline forward ten years, as, in PS/f, the Daily Prophet issue covering the 1991 Gringotts break-in is dated August 24, 2001. This is odd, given that the first two films are more careful in presenting a world that could pass for the early 1990s, given that there's little to no anachronistic fashions, music, buildings, cars, and technology, as there is in later films. I think the filmmakers decided to conform to the book timeline, at least in terms of year number, sometime around GoF/f, given the dates on the Riddle family's grave. This is odd, because from GoF onward, the films present a world that increasingly resembles the 2000s more than the 1990s. <font color="Green">&#x2605; <font face="Times" color="green">S <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">a <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 18:37, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

The date on the Daily Prophet in PS/f should not be considered, as it not only contradicts the books, as it also contradicts the film itself (placing the event on the middle of the summer, when they wouldn’t be at school). Also, the canon policy deems the latest source in its tier as the "most canonical" within said tier. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 19:18, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning more towards seth's arguments here we have no way of knopwing that this Harry Potter world isn't actually a flat disc on top of four elephants on top of a giant turtle floating through space as no-where in the books (to my memory) soes it say the world is spherical and does not consist of any giant turtles floating through space. This also suits the minor differences you see in things with paralll universes the playstation pone year early, I'm not sre about this one but I think platform 9 and 10 are on different platforms and so it would it be impossible to urun inbetween them to get to platform 9 and 3/4's so this also means it's possible for a bridge tp be theearly sorry or spelling and grammar errors size of pagemY COMP IS FREEZING WHILE i'M TYPING. -- Miniwally Ravenclaw.jpg( Owl me! ) 01:43, December 6, 2009 (UTC)