This article should be removed, the only relation to Harry Potter that the Millenium Bridge has is that it was used for the filming of the destruction of the BROCKDALE BRIDGE. This article is complete rubbish, none of it's contents are true and they're contradicting to the correct informtion written in the Brockdale Bridge article. Patr0nus 20:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, the Millennium Bridge collapse is mentioned on a radio broadcast at Surbiton station's diner. -- 21:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The film adaptations, being adaptations, will cause problems with the canon and the timeline. The Millennium Bridge incident does not (could not) happen in the canon of the books. Could it be inferred that the film adaptations take place in a different timeline to the books? We could perhaps estimate this by looking at makes and models of cars seen in the Muggle world in the films! But on top of this, could it be a good idea for this, and all other articles relating to or with references to film only events, be clearly defined, with a bias towards the books as the accepted canon? Since articles refer to the Brockdale and Millennium Bridge incidents happening at or around the same time, I think it worth separating the two more definitely as the Millennium Bridge incident is simply a substitute rather than a simultaneous event, likely selected to highlight and emphasise the damage that the Death Eaters are inflicting upon the Muggle world, moreso than an unknown or fictional bridge would have done in a cinematic context. Captain Library 14:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I hate it!!!
- According to this wiki's Canon policy, this article is canonical as it comes from a valid canon source and is not contradicted by higher canon (books and Rowling). -- 23:32, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
- People seem confused by this, but the reason it's not contradicted by anything is basically because the Millennium Bridge in the article is a fictional bridge that existed in the 90s, not the real Millenium Bridge built in 2000. So, basically, this bridge's existence and destruction are events entirely separate from both the Brockdale Bridge and the 2000 Millenium Bridge. Both the Brockdale Bridge and the fictional Millenium bridge were canonically destroyed by Death Eaters-- one was shown in the book, one was shown in the movie, both happened. --Emmy (★) 00:58, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
- The fictional Millennium Bridge collapse was likely inspired by the real "Galloping Gertie" bridge collapse caused by wind resonance: see wikipedia:Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940), and a similar but non-fatal wind-caused twisting effect on the real Millennium Bridge until it was strengthened: see wikipedia:Millennium Bridge (London). Anthony Appleyard 06:24, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
I usually support this wiki's canon policy, but I do believe that it was the director's intent that this is the same bridge that was destroyed in the book, except with a different name. I say merge this into the Behind the scenes section of Brookdale Bridge, or keep this article, but with a non-canon tag. —C Teng 01:02, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see what the problem is. The film specifically names it "Millennium Bridge" in its dialogue, thus separating it from the Brockdale Bridge incident, and the books do not contradict it. The fictional world in which the characters live is different from the one we live in both historically (PlayStation wasn't available in Japan untill December 1994, in the books the Dursleys had one by the summer of that year; there are no records of an incident involving a dragon on a Muggle beach in the 1930s, etc., etc.) and geographically (I haven't ever heard of a street in London called Grimmauld Place. Nor a town called Godric's Hollow. Nor an island in the British Isles called Avalon. Nor a county called Brookshire. Nor a body of water that goes by the name of "The Sea". And I could go on and on and on.) Given this, it is not impossible that, in this fictional world, the Millennium Bridge could be in existance a few years earlier. -- 01:35, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
this is getting stupid.
contradictions: why would the prime minister completely neglect to mention this bridge, but talk about the brockdale one frequently? why would a bridge named millennium be built in the 90s? by definition it has to built on a thousand year landmark, occurring after the end of deathly hallows when all the death eaters have been captured. I hate it when the wiki tries to make everything fit in, when the makers of the ADAPTATION of th book clearly just intended it to replace Brockdale. this is like saying that both Neville and Dobby discovered the room of requirement, but Harry just never mentioned Neville. Or like saying when an actress or actor changes in a film, that they had some sort of ageing curse or something. Or trying to explain that Cho chang infact had to do her OWLs twice. Sometimes things in the film don't fit with the book. just accept it, and add it in BTS. 22.214.171.124 16:45, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
Events like with Neville and Dobby are not written like this artikel because they directly contradict eachother, in wich case book canon trumphs film canon. This isn't the case with the two bridges, although i agree with you on that a milenium bridge is a little bit wierd in the 90's.Coleon 17:17, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Names can be misleading. I remember having read something about "Butt Hole Road", in South Yorkshire (the name had inconspicuously to do with the site's historic function as a source of water - a water butt being a container for collecting water). You may also have heard of the French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire's sardonical remarks about the Holy Roman Empire: "This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." There is a whole number of reasons why the bridge could be called "Millennium" within the Harry Potter continuity; you don't have much of an argument. -- 20:14, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the IP (two years later). It's incredibly obvious that the bridge collapse in the film was meant as an adaptation of the bridge collapse in the book, not an entirely different bridge collapse. Merging the articles may go against this wiki's precious, no-exceptions "canon" policy, but it would be the right move. —C Teng 00:30, February 28, 2014 (UTC)