A friend told me yesterday that in the USA, the name of the movie ‘Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone’ was changed to something like the Harry Potter and the Sourcerer’s Stone. He said that this is because US kids have poor comprehension. Of course, in making the change the meaning is lost.
What is the real reason behind the change in name? The US education system isn’t that bad is it?
Anyone aware of other changes made for a US audience?
Well, in the british version, Harry actually kills his friend Ron, in a knife wielding accident. I don’t think that’s in the US version. Also, there’s a little bit of naughtiness between Harry and Hermone, if I remember correctly. I think professor Magonigal (sp?) catches Harry with his hand up her dress or something like that. 
The real reason is that Scholastic (the American publisher of the Harry Potter books) didn’t think that American kids would know what the Philosopher’s Stone was. (Yes, it was the book, not just the movie that was changed.)
I’m not entirely sure British kids would know either, but the British publisher (and the Canadian publisher - Bloomsbury and Raincoast respectively, IIRC) are apparently less concerned with including references that the readers will have to look up.
I was under the impression that the concern was less about comprehension than perception. (ie; it was a marketing decision.)
“Sorcerer” = exciting & magical
“Philosopher” = dusty and boring
The idea being that even if parents were familiar with the arcana of alchemy, they might not consider it something that would rock their kids’ world.
That is an interesting take on it Larry, however, when the words ‘Philosphers’ and ‘Stone’ are put together it then also becomes magical and exciting.
Perhaps there are a lot of marketers out there competing for the ever-diminishing attention span of children.
I wouldnt think that U.S. kids have poorer comprehension then any other children that had access to the book, I know several choldren who ordered the Philosopher’s stone version and didnt find it any harder, these kids werent exceptionally bright or gifted , either.
I don’t know about that. I’ve read an awful lot of hermetic philosophy, and, while I find it endlessly fascinating, it doesn’t quicken my heartbeat. Even when the writers use “quest” metaphors, such as in The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkruetz, the focus in on mystical allegory rather than an exciting story. If I were a parent looking to spend my money on entertainment for a young reader, hermetic themes wouldn’t be something that compelled me to part with my dollar. (Especially when the editorial decision was made-- when “Harry Potter” was something less than a household name.)
For the record, I think that J.K. Rowling’s books are kick-ass children’s literature-- Like Kipling’s books for young people, they have immediate appeal for kids, and the level of intertextuality she uses makes it rewarding for kids to look into classic literature, too. (And, obviously, Harry Potter & The Philospher’s Stone is a better title. If I were a meddling editor, I might have been tempted to suggest Harry Potter & The Stone of Philosphers, though.)
Flowerchild, how did you bring your choldren to viability? I have the worst luck with homunculi-- I think that the dung I’m using is too acidid.
Oh darn, there goes that whole “americans are just as literate”
Ploy, but I did say the kids could read well, not me.
I think it is a huge shame that they felt the need to alter the book for an American audience. I would be horrified and infuriated to learn that a US book had been similarly altered for UK consumption. Much as I loathe the spelling “color” - I expect to see it in an American work, it is part of that country’s language and literature.
After all, isn’t finding out about stuff they didn’t know before how kids learn?
This whole thing reminds me of that decembric phrase: “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.”
*Originally posted by Larry Mudd *
**
Flowerchild, how did you bring your choldren to viability? I have the worst luck with homunculi-- I think that the dung I’m using is too acidid. **
Throw in a bit of gypsum. Not too much when forming vyable golum chold - may cause blyndness.
A previous thread with a link (that still works) to a page with version comparisons: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=101435