Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
What about the Viaduct's appearance in the first six films and games?? The article only mentions it's appearance in Deathly Hallows: Part 2 and Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (video game). Only the Behind the Scenes section mentions briefly it's appearance in the first six films and games. --Danniesen 17:24, December 30, 2011 (Denmark)
- Because, as most recent canon, it takes precedence. In Deathly Hallows, in all appearances (even flashbacks) the Viaduct connects the Courtyard to the grounds. -- 16:56, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Of course I remember it. I'm saying that in Deathly Hallows the Viaduct changes place, and as most recent canon that should be what's presented in the article (even in the 1981 flashbacks in the film, the Viaduct is in the new position). -- 17:36, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Does that mean that the position in the first six films and games may not be mentioned in the article. --Danniesen 20:25, December 30, 2011 (Denmark)
- Despite this, it is not true that all of it's appearances in DH2 shows it in it's new position. If you watch the film, after Harry, Ron and Hermione jumps from the dragon. In Harry's vision it shows Hogwarts from the left side. The Viaduct cannot be seen in it's new position, which gives another reason to mention it's appearances in all the other film's and fifth and sixth game. --Danniesen 20:55, February 21, 2012 (Denmark)
- More recent canon trumps older canon. The images in question are reused footage from Order of the Phoenix, and even if they weren't, later on in the film, the position of the viaduct is pretty much established. -- 20:00, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
How many Viaducts?
- What about the LEGO video game? The castle shows the viaduct in the two positions (or, if you prefer, it shows the "two viaducts"), and some earlier images for Deathly Hallows showed the same. Should we consider that they are the same, even after LEGO Harry Potter: Years 5-7? --The Evening Prophet (Owl Post) 15:20, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
Images of both Viaducts at the same time:
- It's just the one. Film canon trumps video game/promotional material canon. -- 18:04, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this one. In the final film a bit of the second Viaduct is shown when the Death Eaters and Giants attack. Also in the scene where Lavender Brown is attacked the entrance to the Viaduct can be seen. --Danniesen 21:30, 14 January, 2012 (Denmark)
- Sorry, but no. Give me some evidence it does, all I have seen is the Ravine go ininterrupted where the Viaduct stood in the earlier films. See this: -- 22:15, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
- It's true that film canon trumps video game/promotional material canon, but the existence of the "old viaduct" should be canon, if the Chamber of Reception or the DADA tower are. The video game and the promotional image does not contradict the film, it just shows that they are different viaducts. --The Evening Prophet (Owl Post) 00:07, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
- It's not the same, because the Chamber of Reception/Viaduct Courtyard and the DADA tower/Astronomy Tower changes implicit the introduction of new elements to the Castle. The only changes in the Viaduct are its location; there is no "new Viaduct", it's the same, just on a different location. It's just like the PS/CS Flitwick and PA/GF/OP/HBP/DH2 Flitwick, or the PS/CS/PA/GF/OP/HBP Grand Staircase and the DH2 Grand Staircase: they are are essentially the same, just with different physical attributes/appearances. -- 13:05, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Seth, both are the same with different appearance, 18.104.22.168 14:17, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
The films don't say it's the same viaduct (unlike Flitwick's case), and the video game states it's a different one, so being a different one must be considered canon. Besides this, if the Viaduct no longer connects the courtyard to the Viaduct Entrance, shouldn't we move the Viaduct Entrance article to another name? (For example, Front Hall, which is the name given in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (video game)) --The Evening Prophet (Owl Post) 16:43, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
- "The films don't say it's the same viaduct (unlike Flitwick's case), and the video game states it's a different one, so being a different one must be considered canon." I have to disagree with you on this one. It is evidently the same structure (they did not even attempt to redesign it), and it keeps its name. Claiming that they are different structures would be like saying that there are two Hagrid's cabins, or two Whomping Willows, just because the filmmakers decided to change their locations in-between films. Besides, video game canon is totally irrelevant to the matter; the film shows that there is no viaduct connecting the Viaduct Courtyard to the Viaduct Entrance, and the films being a higher source of canon, that is canon.
- As for moving Viaduct Entrance to Front Hall, I am also opposed. There is no evidence that the "Front Hall" mentioned in the game is supposed to be the films' Viaduct Courtyard (in fact, in-game, the "Front Hall" refers to the Entrance Hall, so renaming it to that would be innapropriate anyway). As the only canon name we have, "Viaduct Entrance" is to be kept (at least until we have a better name). -- 20:18, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's true what you say about the Viaduct. Regarding the Front Hall, in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (video game) (PS1 version), when you enter the Viaduct Entrance (which I think you meant with Viaduct Courtyard), you go into the Front Hall, which is never mentioned to be the Entrance Hall. Despite the entrance to the Great Hall being there, in Goblet of Fire DVD the Great Hall is also there, and there is not any Marble Staircase in the hall. Anyway, the Viaduct Entrance is identified as the Front Hall and it really makes no sense to call it Viaduct Entrance, which also might be misleading to readers. --The Evening Prophet (Owl Post) 20:38, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
- (Yes, I did mean Viaduct Entrance, sorry for the mix-up). As for the Front Hall in the PS1 version of Chamber of Secrets, the exterior of the building seems to be inspired in the Viaduct Entrance façade, but inside one indubitably finds the Entrance Hall (there's the marble staircase, the Great Hall and the way to the Dungeons), as it was on the previous PS1 video game, Philosopher's Stone. Anyway, most of the Castle and grounds do not match the film castle layout at all, so making claims that the game's Entrance Hall is the same as the Viaduct Entrance would be entirely based in speculation and innapropriate.
- It makes no sense to keep calling it the "Viaduct" Entrance, true, but that is the only canon game we can go by. -- 21:44, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
I think we should have an article on the second Viaduct. We have a lot of articles on things that only appear in the LEGO games, or any video game. --Danniesen 13:00, February 12, 2012 (Denmark)
- Not necessary, and innapropriate. By that reasoning we should have the following articles: "Hogwarts Castle (books)", "Hogwarts Castle (films)", "Hogwarts Castle (video game)", "Hogwarts Castle (LEGO Harry Potter games)", "Hogwarts Castle (Pottermore)", "Hogwarts Castle (Wizarding World of Harry Potter)", and I could go on and on and on. -- 12:49, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
- It is not the same. You talk about very big changes. I only talk about a little article. --Danniesen 21:01, February 21, 2012 (Denmark)
- Essentially, yes, it is the same. Creating two separate articles on the same subject, just because of a slight change of appearance would set a precedent that would oblige us to create all the articles I have stated above (and many more). You tell me how having the "Old Viaduct" and "New Viaduct" articles is any different than, say, having two separate articles on "White-haired Filius Flitwick" and "Brown-haired Filius Flitwick". -- 20:06, February 21, 2012 (UTC)