User Avatar Image

Proper British Grammar, segue to Harry Potter

posted by Philski on - last edited - Viewed by 439 users

* proper British. :p

49 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • I like the adult covers, actually. I find them simple and to the point. I probably would have chosen them if I had been given a choice. Didn't even know they existed for years.

    While it boggles my mind that they thought "people won't know what the Philosopher Stone is", I can't be too hard on them renaming it that way. The French first book is, well... I hate the translation :P I don't blame the translater, only the publisher, who obviously asked him to dumb it down. So, first it's called "Harry Potter Goes to Wizard School", then you have several scenes simply cut off, and you have added explanation about how "in wizard school, there are houses"...-_-'

    It just annoys me how people assume children = stupid. So they're going to be given lots of weird wizard words and concepts that don't actually exist, but still the publisher thought "they won't understand the concept of houses, we need to add an explanation on how it's a weird wizard stuff!"

    How, and the French covers suck too. I do like the American covers but overall I think the British adult covers are my favourite. It's a shame they don't have a real pocket version. The only one I saw advertised "almost as big as the hardcover!" well, no, that's not what I want, but thanks :P

  • I would like to note that the change from Philosophers Stone to Sorcerers stone is stupid. so I agree. But here's the thing. A lot of people everywhere don't know or care what the philosophers stone is. people will look it up if they are interested.

    here's the thing. in the USA: Children= stupid.
    Children + No Child Left Behind = more stupid
    Children + No Child Left Behind + Dumbed down books = more stupid
    Children + Explanations they can understand = smarter

    Try that people. don't dumb it down, No one did for me. I now read at a better than most high school graduates.

    I like the british childish covers. A friend of mine has one of those ones. He also has a poster for the Philosophers stone. He's awesome.

    I'm done now

  • @Rather Dashing said: I propose a solution for the "childish book cover" problem.

    Okay I have to admit this cracked me up for some time.
    Actually I want to print them and use them on my desk...

  • The thing is, I'm pretty sure I remember a Scrooge story with the Philosopher stone in it (as in, Scrooge Mc Duck). So it's not like it's unheard of in stuff that children might read.
    And even if it was the reader's first time hearing about it, there is no reason why it would be any weirder than all the new things in the book.
    And... I haven't read the book (I mean the American version) but I can't imagine that every instance of "Philosopher's Stone" was replaced with "Sorcerer's Stone". So changing it only in the title is... very weird.

    I guess they thought "people won't buy it because they won't understand the title". But as I said the French title is even worse... >.>

    However I have to say, I don't think the changed titled should have been used for the movie. They went into the trouble of getting British actors and everything, and then they put the American title? When everybody already knows it's a changed title? (okay, maybe some people didn't at the time, but still).
    I seriously think that they should have gone with the original title for the movie. It would have made much more sense.
    (And the French version of the movie should have used another title than the first book's title. Like, the actual translation of the title. Just saying.)

  • @Katsuro said: Okay I have to admit this cracked me up for some time.
    Actually I want to print them and use them on my desk...

    I want to print them and use them on my BOOKS. I really do wish some of them were real.

  • @avistew said: The thing is, I'm pretty sure I remember a Scrooge story with the Philosopher stone in it (as in, Scrooge Mc Duck). So it's not like it's unheard of in stuff that children might read.
    And even if it was the reader's first time hearing about it, there is no reason why it would be any weirder than all the new things in the book.


    That's one thing I found hilarious: Why is a Sorcerer's Stone any clearer than a Philosopher's Stone? If they hadn't heard about the Philosopher's Stone, I don't see how it would be any more confusing than the Sorcerer's Stone, which is ANOTHER THING that they've never heard about that does the exact same thing. The name would be unknown either way.

    And... I haven't read the book (I mean the American version) but I can't imagine that every instance of "Philosopher's Stone" was replaced with "Sorcerer's Stone". So changing it only in the title is... very weird.


    There you'd be wrong. They did go through and change every instance of Philosopher's Stone to Sorcerer's Stone, just as they did in the Warner Bros. film.

  • @avistew said:
    And... I haven't read the book (I mean the American version) but I can't imagine that every instance of "Philosopher's Stone" was replaced with "Sorcerer's Stone". So changing it only in the title is... very weird.

    believe me, it is one of the only books I will read more than once. they did. They searched through the book and replaced every philosopher with sorcerer.

  • I didn't realise Sorcerer's Stone was another name for the Philosopher's Stone (honestly, I only know it as "pierre philosophale"). I assumed they called it Sorcerer's Stone because there are sorcerers in the books. So, you know, there is a sorcerer, he has a stone, that's the Sorcerer's Stone. Capitalised because it's a title.
    While it might sound ridiculous that they'd change it only to replace it with something that means the same thing, I feel relieved that they didn't dumb it down to the point I thought they did.

    I didn't pay much attention to what they were calling it when I saw the movie since at the time I couldn't understand stuff spoken with a British accent anyways so I only depended on the subtitles. (I know "a British accent" is vague. Let's say I didn't understand any of the 10,000+ existing ones).

    I remember the first time I saw Love Actually, I didn't even notice that two of the characters were speaking back and forth in different languages. Since you know, both were subtitled and I couldn't understand what the people were saying anyways. Now I wonder how I could not have noticed, since Portuguese and English are pretty different :confused:

  • I love you guys.


    ...and I'm totally splitting this off into a different topic.

  • Wow, we got so off-topic that it was split into a new thread! Considering most threads are off-topic and don't get that honour...
    It's gloating time!

Add Comment