The movie rule

[Kelley]

David:
> My understanding is, that, other things being equal, there *is* a
> valid place for the movies in canon-related discussion ("support
> for a book-related point") and that, in that sense, Geoff has logic
> on his side. <<<

"A valid place for the movies in canon-related discussion" -- yes, 
I think so; that's really the reason we eased up on the movie rule 
in the first place.

For those who don't know, from when the Movie list was created up 
until just before OoP's release, any and *all* movie-related 
discussion had to go to the Movie list.  Just before OoP we changed 
this to the more lenient rule that movie references would be okay, 
so long as they were used to support a canon argument.

> My understanding of the reason for the rule, however, is that it is
> impossible in practice to hold the logical line ("the inevitable
> tendency of any discussion referencing the Warner Bros. Harry
> Potter films to drift off-topic").  Threads which validly discuss
> the canon implications of the movies just too often fail to stay
> that way. People start discussing the content of the movies
> themselves instead.  So the rule is about pragmatic control of the
> content of the lists, not about whether the movies have a place in
> canon discussion. >>>

Exactly.

> For that reason, I feel that discussion of the extent of JKR's
> influence on the movies is beside the point as far as this rule is
> concerned.  Anyone who wants to suggest an alternative needs to
> look, not to logic, but to a practical and easy-to-understand-and-
> enforce definition of what is on-topic for the main list. >>>

Yes; the way I'd tried to explain it in the welcome message I send 
new members was:

"Discussion of the films is only allowed on the main list when it
specifically supports or refutes something from canon.  For example, 
that the color of Harry's eyes is not as important as we believed, 
but that he has his mother's eyes is still important."

Certainly not the greatest explanation or example, of course; I did 
find it quite difficult to come up with the best definition.

So, while lots of list members did appreciate the distinction, too 
many did not, thus the discussions that strayed into pure 'movie' 
territory.

> Dicentra's list of acceptable and unacceptable posts missed out the
> kind of post that, I thought, has now changed status as a result of
> the rule:
>
> "I think that Lupin's references to Lily in the movie foreshadow a
> Lupin/Lily ship which JKR revealed to Kloves and Thewlis, which she
> is intending to put into HBP."
>
> As I understand it, that was acceptable before the rule change, and
> now is not. >>>

I'd say yes, that's correct.  Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing this 
particular topic (Lupin/Lily) discussed on main.  Where the problem 
comes in is that some folks would see this topic being discussed and 
think that makes it okay to discuss whatever else from the movies, 
that the thread would end up going into pure movie territory, etc., 
etc., etc. Someone can make the argument based on canon, of course.

> I thought all the unacceptable ones listed by Dicey
> were already unacceptable, because they illuminate no canon point.
>
> Is that right?

Yes, that is right.

Fwiw, when we eased up on the 'no movie on main' rule early last 
summer, a number of list members did express that they were unhappy 
about that.  Now that we've gone back to that rule, quite a few have 
expressed their approval, far more than have complained against it.

As far as what is or isn't canon, arguments can be made for anything 
beyond the books (and schoolbooks) themselves.  Personally, I do take 
anything JKR says on her website or in online chats as canon, though 
with a grain of salt; my view is that 'it's not canon until it's 
canon'.

--Kelley