document_title: Harry Potter (film series)

question_text: what are the names of the 8 harry potter movies

question_tokens: what are the names of the 8 harry potter movies

text: Harry Potter (film series)

text: Origins

text: Late in 1997, film producer David Heyman's London offices received a copy of the first book in what would become Rowling's series of seven Harry Potter novels. The book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, was relegated to a low-priority bookshelf, where it was discovered by a secretary who read it and gave it to Heyman with a positive review. Consequently, Heyman, who had originally disliked "the rubbish title", read the book himself. Highly impressed by Rowling's work, he began the process that led to one of the most successful cinematic franchises of all time.[10]

text: Heyman's enthusiasm led to Rowling's 1999 sale of the film rights for the first four Harry Potter books to Warner Bros. for a reported £1 million (US$2,000,000).[11] A demand Rowling made was that the principal cast be kept strictly British, allowing nevertheless for the inclusion of many Irish actors, such as Richard Harris as Dumbledore, and for casting of French and Eastern European actors in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire where characters from the book are specified as such.[12] Rowling was hesitant to sell the rights because she "didn't want to give them control over the rest of the story" by selling the rights to the characters, which would have enabled Warner Bros. to make non-author-written sequels.[13]

text: Although Steven Spielberg initially negotiated to direct the first film, he declined the offer.[14] Spielberg wanted the adaptation to be an animated film, with American actor Haley Joel Osment providing Harry Potter's voice.[15][not in citation given] Spielberg contended that, in his opinion, there was every expectation of profit in making the film. He claims that making money would have been like "shooting ducks in a barrel. It's just a slam dunk. It's just like withdrawing a billion dollars and putting it into your personal bank accounts. There's no challenge".[16] In the "Rubbish" Bin section of her website, Rowling maintains that she had no role in choosing directors for the films, writing "Anyone who thinks I could (or would) have 'veto-ed' him [Spielberg] needs their Quick-Quotes Quill serviced."[17]

text: After Spielberg left, conversations began with other directors, including Chris Columbus, Jonathan Demme, Terry Gilliam, Mike Newell, Alan Parker, Wolfgang Petersen, Rob Reiner, Tim Robbins, Brad Silberling, and Peter Weir.[18] Petersen and Reiner both pulled out of the running in March 2000.[19] It was then narrowed down to Columbus, Gilliam, Parker, and Silberling.[20] Rowling's first choice was Terry Gilliam.[21] However, on 28 March 2000 Columbus was appointed as director of the film, with Warner Bros. citing his work on other family films such as Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire as influences for their decision.[22]

text: Harry Potter is the kind of timeless literary achievement that comes around once in a lifetime. Since the books have generated such a passionate following across the world, it was important to us to find a director that has an affinity for both children and magic. I can't think of anyone more ideally suited for this job than Chris [Columbus].

text: Steve Kloves was selected to write the screenplay for the first film. He described adapting the book as "tough" since it did not "lend itself to adaptation as well as the next two books". Kloves was sent a "raft" of synopses of books proposed as film adaptations, with Harry Potter being the only one that jumped out at him. He went out and bought the book, becoming an instant fan. When speaking to Warner Bros. he stated that the film had to be British and true to the characters.[23] David Heyman was confirmed to produce the film.[22] Rowling received a large amount of creative control for the film, an arrangement that Columbus did not mind.[24]

text: Warner Bros. had initially planned to release the first film over the 4 July 2001 weekend, making for such a short production window that several of the originally proposed directors had withdrawn themselves from contention. Eventually, due to time constraints, the date was put back to 16 November 2001.[25]

text: Casting the roles of Harry, Ron, and Hermione

text: In 2000, after a seven-month search, lead actor Daniel Radcliffe was discovered by producer David Heyman and writer Steve Kloves seated just behind them in a theatre. In Heyman's own words, "There sitting behind me was this boy with these big blue eyes. It was Dan Radcliffe. I remember my first impressions: He was curious and funny and so energetic. There was real generosity too, and sweetness. But at the same time he was really voracious and with hunger for knowledge of whatever kind."[10]

text: Radcliffe had already established himself as an actor in the 1999 BBC television production of David Copperfield in which he played the title role's childhood years. Heyman persuaded Radcliffe's parents to allow him to audition for the part of Harry Potter, which involved Radcliffe being filmed.[10] (This screen test footage was released via the first set of Ultimate Editions in 2009.)[26] Rowling was enthusiastic after viewing Radcliffe's filmed test, saying she didn't think there was a better choice for the part of Harry Potter.[10][27]

text: Also in 2000, the then unknown British actors Emma Watson and Rupert Grint were selected from thousands of auditioning children to play the roles of Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, respectively. Their only previous acting experience was in school plays. Grint was eleven years old and Watson ten at the time they were cast.[28]

text: Los Angeles Times writer Geoff Boucher, who conducted the above-mentioned interview with Heyman, added that the casting of the three major roles "is especially impressive in hindsight. The trio's selection was arguably one of the best show-business decisions over the past decade... they have shown admirable grace and steadiness in the face of teen superstardom."[10][27]

text: Production

text: Filming of the series began at Leavesden Studios, Hertfordshire, England, in September 2000 and ended in December 2010, with post-production on the final film lasting until summer 2011.[6] Leavesden Studios was the main base for filming Harry Potter, and it opened to the public as a studio tour in 2012 (renamed as Warner Bros. Studios, Leavesden).[29]

text:
Film

Director

Screenwriter

Producer(s) [n 1]

Composer

Rating

Novel by J. K. Rowling

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Chris Columbus

Steve Kloves

David Heyman

John Williams

PG

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Alfonso Cuarón

David Heyman, Chris Columbus and Mark Radcliffe

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Mike Newell

David Heyman

Patrick Doyle

PG-13

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

David Yates

Michael Goldenberg

David Heyman and David Barron

Nicholas Hooper

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Steve Kloves

PG

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1

David Heyman, David Barron and J. K. Rowling

Alexandre Desplat

PG-13

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2

text: David Heyman produced all the films in the series with his production company Heyday Films, while David Barron joined the series as an executive producer on Chamber of Secrets and Goblet of Fire. Barron was later appointed producer on the last four films. Chris Columbus was an executive producer on the first two films alongside Mark Radcliffe and Michael Barnathan, but he became a producer on the third film alongside Heyman and Radcliffe. Other executive producers include Tanya Seghatchian and Lionel Wigram. J. K. Rowling, author of the series, was asked to become a producer on Goblet of Fire but declined. She subsequently accepted the role on the two-part Deathly Hallows.[30]

text: Heyday Films and Columbus' company 1492 Pictures collaborated with Duncan Henderson Productions in 2001, Miracle Productions in 2002, and P of A Productions in 2004. Even though Prisoner of Azkaban was the final film produced by 1492 Pictures, Heyday Films continued with the franchise and collaborated with Patalex IV Productions in 2005. The sixth film in the series, Half-Blood Prince, was the most expensive film to produce as of  2009[update].

text: Warner Bros. split the seventh and final novel in the series, Deathly Hallows, into two cinematic parts. The two parts were filmed back-to-back from early 2009 to summer 2010, with the completion of reshoots taking place on 21 December 2010; this marked the end of filming Harry Potter. Heyman stated that Deathly Hallows was "shot as one film" but released in two feature-length parts.[31]

text: Tim Burke, the visual effects supervisor of the series, said of the production on Harry Potter, "It was this huge family; I think there were over 700 people working at Leavesden, an industry in itself." David Heyman said, "When the first film opened, no way did I think we'd make eight films. That didn't seem feasible until after we'd done the fourth." Nisha Parti, the production consultant on the first film, said that Heyman "made the first film very much the way he felt the studio Warner Bros. wanted to make it." After the film's success, Heyman was given "more freedom".[32]

text: One of the aims of the filmmakers from the beginning of production was to develop the maturity of the films. Chris Columbus stated, "We realised that these movies would get progressively darker. Again, we didn't know how dark but we realised that as the kids get older, the movies get a little edgier and darker."[33] This transpired with the succeeding three directors who would work on the series in the following years, with the films beginning to deal with issues such as death, betrayal, prejudice, and political corruption as the series developed narratively and thematically.[5][34]

text: Directors

text: After Chris Columbus had finished working on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, he was hired to direct the second film, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. The production started within a week after the release of the first film. Columbus was set to direct all entries in the series,[35] but he did not want to return for the third film, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, claiming he was "burned out".[36] He moved to the position of producer, while Alfonso Cuarón was approached for the role of director. He was initially nervous about directing the instalment since he had not read any of the books or seen the films. After reading the series, he changed his mind and signed on to direct since he had immediately connected to the story.[37]

text: Because Cuarón decided not to direct the fourth instalment, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, a new director had to be selected.[38] Mike Newell was chosen to direct the film, but he declined to direct the next film, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which was given to David Yates, who also directed Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, becoming the only director to helm more than one film since Chris Columbus.

text: Chris Columbus said his vision of the first two films was of a "golden storybook, an old-fashioned look", while Alfonso Cuarón changed the visual tone of the series, desaturated the colour palette, and expanded the landscape around Hogwarts.[33][38] Mike Newell decided to direct the fourth film as a "paranoid thriller", while David Yates wanted to "bring a sense of jeopardy and character to the world".[39][40] Cuarón, Newell, and Yates have said that their challenge was striking a balance between making the films according to their individual vision, while working within a cinematic world already established by Columbus.[38][39][40]

text: David Heyman commented on the "generosity of the directors" by revealing that "Chris spent time with Alfonso, Alfonso spent time with Mike and Mike spent time with David, showing him an early cut of the film, talking through what it means to be a director and how they went about [making the films]."[41]

text: David Heyman also said, "I suppose Chris Columbus was the most conservative choice from the studio's point of view. But he expressed real passion."[32] Producer Tanya Seghatchian said they were "more adventurous" in choosing a director for the third film and went straight to Alfonso Cuarón.[32] Mike Newell became the first British director of the series when he was chosen for the fourth film; Newell was considered to direct the first film before he dropped out.[32] David Yates directed the final films after David Heyman thought him capable of handling the edgy, emotional, and political material of the later novels.[42]

text: All the directors have been supportive of each other. Chris Columbus praised the character development in the films, while Alfonso Cuarón admired the "quiet poetry" of David Yates' films.[33][38] Mike Newell noted that each director had a different heroism, and David Yates views the first four films "respectfully and enjoy[s] them."[39][40] Daniel Radcliffe said Yates "took the charm of the films that Chris made and the visual flair of everything that Alfonso did and the thoroughly British, bombastic nature of the film directed by Mike Newell" and added "his own sense" of realism.[43]

text: Scripts

text: Steve Kloves wrote the screenplays for all but the fifth film, which was penned by Michael Goldenberg. Kloves had direct assistance from J.K. Rowling, though she allowed him what he described as "tremendous elbow room". Rowling asked Kloves to remain faithful to the spirit of the books; thus, the plot and tone of each film and its corresponding book are virtually the same, albeit with some changes and omissions for purposes of cinematic style, time, and budget constraints. Michael Goldenberg also received input from Rowling during his adaptation of the fifth novel; Goldenberg was originally considered to adapt the first novel before the studio chose Kloves.[44]

text: In a 2010 interview, David Heyman briefly explained the book-to-film transition. He commented on Rowling's involvement in the series, stating that she understood that "books and films are different" and was "the best support" a producer could have. Rowling had overall approval on the scripts, which were viewed and discussed by the director and the producers. Heyman also said that Kloves was the "key voice" in the process of adapting the novels and that certain aspects from the books needed to have been excluded from the scripts due to the filmmakers' decision to keep the main focus on Harry's journey as a character, which would ultimately give the films a defined structure. Heyman mentioned that some fans "don't necessarily understand the adaptation process" and that the filmmakers would have loved to "have everything" from the books in the films but noted that it was not possible since they had "neither time nor cinematic structure" to do so. He finished by saying that adapting a novel to the screen is "a really considered process."[45]

text: Because the films were being made as the novels were being published, the filmmakers had no idea of the story's outcome until the release of the final novel in 2007. Kloves spoke of his relationship with Rowling when adapting the novels by saying, "The thing is about Jo, which is remarkable for someone who had no experience with the filmmaking process, was her intuition. We had a conversation the very first day I met her where she said, 'I know the movies can't be the books... because I know what's coming and it's impossible to fully dramatise on screen what I'm going to write. But I just ask you to be true to the characters; that's all I care about.'"[46] Kloves also said, "I don't know what compelled me to say this [to Rowling], but I said, 'I've just got to warn you my favourite character is not Harry. My favourite character is Hermione.' And I think for some weird reason, from that moment on, she sort of trusted me."[46]

text: Cast and crew

text: Aside from the three lead actors, other notable cast members include Robbie Coltrane as Rubeus Hagrid, Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy, Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, and Dame Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall. Richard Harris, who played the role of Professor Albus Dumbledore, died on 25 October 2002 causing the role to be re-cast for the third instalment, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. David Heyman and director Alfonso Cuarón chose Michael Gambon to portray the character of Dumbledore, which he did for all succeeding films. Notable recurring cast members include Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange, Warwick Davis as Filius Flitwick, Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort, Brendan Gleeson as Alastor Moody, Richard Griffiths as Vernon Dursley, Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy, Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, Fiona Shaw as Petunia Dursley, Timothy Spall as Peter Pettigrew, David Thewlis as Remus Lupin, Emma Thompson as Sybill Trelawney, Mark Williams as Arthur Weasley, and Julie Walters as Molly Weasley.

text: The series has seen many returning crew members from various departments, including Tim Burke, visual effects supervisor; Peter Doyle, digital film colourist; Nick Dudman, make-up and creature effects designer; David Holmes, stunt double; Amanda Knight, make-up artist; Stephenie McMillan, set designer; Greg Powell, stunt coordinator; Jany Temime, costume designer; and Fiona Weir, casting director.

text: Set design

text: The production designer for all eight films is Stuart Craig. Assisted by Stephenie McMillan, Craig has created iconic sets pieces including the Ministry of Magic, the Chamber of Secrets, Malfoy Manor, and the layout for the CGI Horcrux Cave. Because the novels were being published as the films were being made, Craig was required to rebuild some sets for future films and alter the design of Hogwarts.[49]

text: He said, "In the early days, every time you saw the exterior of Hogwarts, it was a physical miniature," which was made by craftsmen and occupied a large sound stage.[51][52] "We ended up with a profile of how Hogwarts looked, a skyline that actually I didn't design, and it wasn't always satisfactory, and as all the novels got written and movies got made there were new requirements [for buildings]. The [Astronomy Tower] definitely wasn't there originally, and so we were able to add that substantial piece. And in the last film, we needed an arena for the battle for Hogwarts – the big courtyard outside doubled in size, and if you look at the first movie it wasn't there at all. There were quite some liberties taken with the continuity of Hogwarts."[53] In the last film, Craig used a digital model instead of a miniature to "embrace the latest technology".[52]

text: On the method of creating the sets, Craig said he often started by sketching ideas onto a blank sheet of paper.[54] Stephanie McMillan also said that "each film always had plenty of new challenges," citing the changes in visual style between directors and cinematographers as an example, along with the developing story in the novels. Due to J.K. Rowling's descriptions of various settings in the novels, Craig noted his "responsibility was to place it together".[55]

text: Craig commented on his experience working in the studio environment: "I'm the production designer, but on a big movie like Harry Potter I may be responsible for 30 to 35 people; from the supervising art director, and a team of art directors and assistants, to draughtsmen and junior draughtsmen, and then on to model makers, sculptors and scenic artists." He said, "Ten years ago, all the Harry Potter drawings were done in pencil. I would take my roughs and plans and sections and give them to a professional architectural illustrator, who would create concept art using pencil and colour wash on watercolour paper." He said the process changed slightly throughout the years due to, what he called, the "digital revolution" of making films.[52]

text: When filming of the series was completed, some of Craig's sets had to be rebuilt or transported for them to be displayed at the Warner Bros. studio tour.[51]

text: Cinematography

text: Six directors of photography worked on the series: John Seale on the first film, Roger Pratt on the second and fourth, Michael Seresin on the third, Sławomir Idziak on the fifth, Bruno Delbonnel on the sixth, and Eduardo Serra on the seventh and eighth. Delbonnel was considered to return for both parts of Deathly Hallows, but he declined, stating that he was "scared of repeating" himself.[56] Delbonnel's cinematography in Half-Blood Prince gained the series its only Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography. As the series progressed, each cinematographer faced the challenge of shooting and lighting older sets (which had been around since the first few films) in unique and different ways.[57] Chris Columbus said the series' vivid colouring decreased as each film was made.[33][58]

text: Michael Seresin commented on the change of visual style from the first two films to Prisoner of Azkaban: "The lighting is moodier, with more shadowing and cross-lighting." Seresin and Alfonso Cuarón moved away from the strongly coloured and brightly lit cinematography of the first two films, with dimmer lighting and a more muted colour palette being utilised for the succeeding five films.[59] After comparing a range of digital cameras with 35 mm film, Bruno Delbonnel decided to shoot the sixth movie, Half-Blood Prince, on film rather than the increasingly popular digital format. This decision was kept for the two-part Deathly Hallows with Eduardo Serra, who said that he preferred to work with film because it was "more technically accurate and dependable".[60]

text: Because the majority of Deathly Hallows takes place in various settings away from Hogwarts, David Yates wanted to "shake things up" by using different photographic techniques such as using hand-held cameras and very wide camera lenses.[61] Eduardo Serra said, "Sometimes we are combining elements shot by the main unit, a second unit, and the visual effects unit. You have to know what is being captured – colours, contrast, et cetera – with mathematical precision." He noted that with Stuart Craig's "amazing sets and the story", the filmmakers could not "stray too far from the look of the previous Harry Potter films."[60][62]

text: Editing

text: Along with continuous changes in cinematographers, there have been five film editors to work in post-production on the series: Richard Francis-Bruce edited the first instalment, Peter Honess the second, Steven Weisberg the third, Mick Audsley the fourth, and Mark Day films five through eight.

text: Music

text: The Harry Potter series has had four composers. John Williams scored the first three films: Philosopher's Stone, Chamber of Secrets, and Prisoner of Azkaban. However, the second entry was adapted and conducted by William Ross due to Williams's conflicting commitments. Williams also created Hedwig's Theme, which is used in every film in the series.

text: After Williams left the series to pursue other projects, Patrick Doyle scored the fourth entry, Goblet of Fire, which was directed by Mike Newell, with whom Doyle had worked previously. In 2006, Nicholas Hooper started work on the score to Order of the Phoenix by reuniting with director David Yates. Hooper also composed the soundtrack to Half-Blood Prince but decided not to return for the final films.

text: In January 2010, Alexandre Desplat was confirmed to compose the score for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1.[63] The film's orchestration started in the summer with Conrad Pope, the orchestrator on the first three Harry Potter films, collaborating with Desplat. Pope commented that the music "reminds one of the old days."[64] Desplat returned to score Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 in 2011.[65]

text: Director David Yates stated that he wanted John Williams to return to the series for the final installment, but their schedules did not align due to the urgent demand for a rough cut of the film.[66] The final recording sessions of Harry Potter took place on 27 May 2011 at Abbey Road Studios with the London Symphony Orchestra, orchestrator Conrad Pope, and composer Alexandre Desplat.[67]

text: Doyle, Hooper, and Desplat introduced their own personal themes to their respective soundtracks, while keeping a few of John Williams's themes.

text: Visual effects

text: There have been many visual effects companies to work on the Harry Potter series. Some of these include Rising Sun Pictures, Double Negative, Cinesite, Framestore, and Industrial Light & Magic. The latter three have worked on all the films in the series, while Double Negative and Rising Sun Pictures began their commitments with Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire, respectively. Framestore contributed by developing many memorable creatures and sequences to the series.[68] Cinesite was involved in producing both miniature and digital effects for the films.[69] Producer David Barron said that "Harry Potter created the UK effects industry as we know it. On the first film, all the complicated visual effects were done on the [US] west coast. But on the second, we took a leap of faith and gave much of what would normally be given to Californian vendors to UK ones. They came up trumps." Tim Burke, the visual effects supervisor, said many studios "are bringing their work to UK effects companies. Every facility is fully booked, and that wasn't the case before Harry Potter. That's really significant."[32]

text: Final filming

text: On 12 June 2010, filming of the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 and Deathly Hallows – Part 2 was completed with actor Warwick Davis stating on his Twitter account, "The end of an Era – today is officially the last day of principal photography on 'Harry Potter' – ever. I feel honoured to be here as the director shouts cut for the very last time. Farewell Harry & Hogwarts, it's been magic!".[70] However, reshoots of the epilogue scene were confirmed to begin in the winter of 2010. The filming was completed on 21 December 2010, marking the official closure of filming the Harry Potter franchise.[71] Exactly four years earlier on that day, author J. K. Rowling's official website revealed the title of the final novel in the series – Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.[72]

text: Films

text: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)

text: Harry Potter is an orphaned boy brought up by his unkind Muggle (non-magical) aunt and uncle. At the age of eleven, half-giant Rubeus Hagrid informs him that he is actually a wizard and that his parents were murdered by an evil wizard named Lord Voldemort. Voldemort also attempted to kill one-year-old Harry on the same night, but his killing curse mysteriously rebounded and reduced him to a weak and helpless form. Harry became extremely famous in the Wizarding World as a result. Harry begins his first year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and learns about magic. During the year, Harry and his friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger become entangled in the mystery of the Philosopher's Stone which is being kept within the school.

text: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

text: Harry, Ron, and Hermione return to Hogwarts for their second year, which proves to be more challenging than the last. The Chamber of Secrets has been opened, leaving students and ghosts petrified by an unleashed monster. Harry must face up to claims that he is the heir of Salazar Slytherin (founder of the Chamber), learn that he can speak Parseltongue, and also discover the properties of a mysterious diary, only to find himself trapped within the Chamber of Secrets itself.

text: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

text: Harry Potter's third year sees the boy wizard, along with his friends, attending Hogwarts School once again. Professor R. J. Lupin joins the staff as Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, while convicted murderer Sirius Black escapes from Azkaban Prison. The Ministry of Magic entrusts the Dementors of Azkaban to guard Hogwarts from Black. Harry learns more about his past and his connection with the escaped prisoner.

text: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

text: During Harry's fourth year, Hogwarts plays host to a legendary event: the Triwizard Tournament. Three European schools participate in the tournament, with three 'champions' representing each school in the deadly tasks. The Goblet of Fire chooses Fleur Delacour, Viktor Krum, and Cedric Diggory to compete against each other. However, curiously, Harry's name is also produced from the Goblet thus making him a fourth champion, which results in a terrifying encounter with a reborn Lord Voldemort.

text: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

text: Harry's fifth year begins with him being attacked by Dementors in Little Whinging. Later, he finds out that the Ministry of Magic is in denial of Lord Voldemort's return. Harry is also beset by disturbing and realistic nightmares, while Professor Umbridge, a representative of Minister for Magic Cornelius Fudge, is the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher. Harry becomes aware that Voldemort is after a prophecy which reveals: "neither can live while the other survives". The rebellion involving the students of Hogwarts, secret organisation Order of the Phoenix, the Ministry of Magic, and the Death Eaters begins.

text: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

text: In Harry's sixth year at Hogwarts, Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters are increasing their terror upon the Wizarding and Muggle worlds. Headmaster Albus Dumbledore persuades his old friend Horace Slughorn to return to Hogwarts as a professor as there is a vacancy to fill. There is a more important reason, however, for Slughorn's return. While in a Potions lesson, Harry takes possession of a strangely annotated school textbook, inscribed 'This is the property of the Half-Blood Prince'. Draco Malfoy struggles to carry out a deed presented to him by Voldemort. Meanwhile, Dumbledore and Harry secretly work together to discover the method on how to destroy the Dark Lord once and for all.

text: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 (2010)

text: After unexpected events at the end of the previous year, Harry, Ron, and Hermione are entrusted with a quest to find and destroy Lord Voldemort's secret to immortality – the Horcruxes. It is supposed to be their final year at Hogwarts, but the collapse of the Ministry of Magic and Voldemort's rise to power prevents them from attending. The trio undergo a long journey with many obstacles in their path including Death Eaters, Snatchers, the mysterious Deathly Hallows, and Harry's connection with the Dark Lord's mind becoming ever stronger.

text: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011)

text: After destroying one Horcrux and discovering the significance of the three Deathly Hallows, Harry, Ron and Hermione continue to seek the other Horcruxes in an attempt to destroy Voldemort, who has now obtained the powerful Elder Wand. The Dark Lord discovers Harry's hunt for Horcruxes and launches an attack on Hogwarts School, where the trio return for one last stand against the dark forces that threaten the Wizarding and Muggle worlds.

text: Release

text: The rights for the first four novels in the series were sold to Warner Bros. for £1,000,000 by J.K. Rowling. After the release of the fourth book in July 2000, the first film, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, was released on 16 November 2001. In its opening weekend, the film grossed $90 million in the United States alone, which set a record opening worldwide. The succeeding three motion picture adaptations followed suit in financial success, while garnering positive reviews from fans and critics. The fifth film, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, was released by Warner Bros. on 11 July 2007 in English-speaking countries, except for the UK and Ireland, which released the movie on 12 July.[73] The sixth, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, was released on 15 July 2009 to critical acclaim and finished its theatrical run ranked as the number two grossing film of 2009 on the worldwide charts.

text: The final novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, was split into two cinematic parts: Part 1 was released on 19 November 2010, and Part 2, the conclusion to both the final film and the series, was released on 15 July 2011.[74] Part 1 was originally scheduled to be released in 3D and 2D,[75] but due to a delay in the 3D conversion process, Warner Bros. released the film only in 2D and IMAX cinemas. However, Part 2 was released in 2D and 3D cinemas as originally planned.[76]

text: The television broadcast rights for the series in the United States are currently held by NBCUniversal, which typically airs the films on USA Network and Syfy. [77] The film series has accrued nearly 1.3 billion viewings since its television debut—the highest-watched franchise in television broadcast history.[78]

text: Reception

text: Critical response

text: All the films have been a success financially and critically, making the franchise one of the major Hollywood "tent-poles" akin to James Bond, Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Pirates of the Caribbean. The series is noted by audiences for growing visually darker and more mature as each film was released.[33][79][80][81][82] However, opinions of the films generally divide book fans, with some preferring the more faithful approach of the first two films and others preferring the more stylised character-driven approach of the later films.

text: Some also feel the series has a "disjointed" feel due to the changes in directors, as well as Michael Gambon's interpretation of Albus Dumbledore differing from that of Richard Harris. Author J. K. Rowling has been constantly supportive of the films,[83][84][85] and evaluated Deathly Hallows as her favourite one in the series. She wrote on her website of the changes in the book-to-film transition, "It is simply impossible to incorporate every one of my storylines into a film that has to be kept under four hours long. Obviously films have restrictions – novels do not have constraints of time and budget; I can create dazzling effects relying on nothing but the interaction of my own and my readers' imaginations".[86]

text: Critical and public response

text:
Motion Picture

Rotten Tomatoes

Metacritic

CinemaScore

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

80% (193 reviews)[87]

64 (35 reviews)[88]

A[89]

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

82% (232 reviews)[90]

63 (35 reviews)[91]

A+[89]

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

91% (253 reviews)[92]

82 (40 reviews)[93]

A[89]

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

88% (248 reviews)[94]

81 (38 reviews)[95]

A[89]

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

78% (245 reviews)[96]

71 (37 reviews)[97]

A−[89]

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

84% (269 reviews)[98]

78 (36 reviews)[99]

A−[89]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1

78% (265 reviews)[100]

65 (42 reviews)[101]

A[89]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2

96% (315 reviews)[102]

87 (41 reviews)[103]

A[89]

text: Accolades

text: At the 64th British Academy Film Awards in February 2011, J. K. Rowling, David Heyman, David Barron, David Yates, Alfonso Cuarón, Mike Newell, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson collected the Michael Balcon Award for Outstanding British Contribution to Cinema for the series.[104][105]

text: In addition, the American Film Institute recognised the entire series with a Special Award at the American Film Institute Awards in 2011. Special awards "are given to outstanding achievements in the moving image that do not fit into AFI's criteria for the other honorees." [106] In its press release, the Institute referred to the films as "a landmark series; eight films that earned the trust of a generation who wished for the beloved books of J.K. Rowling to come to life on the silver screen. The collective wizardry of an epic ensemble gave us the gift of growing older with Harry, Ron and Hermione as the magic of Hogwarts sprung from the films and into the hearts and minds of Muggles around the world." [106]

text: Harry Potter was also recognised by the BAFTA Los Angeles Britannia Awards, with David Yates winning the Britannia Award for Artistic Excellence in Directing for his four Harry Potter films.[107][108]

text:
Motion Picture

Academy Award nomination

Academy Award nominee

Academy Award ceremony

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Best Art DirectionBest Costume DesignBest Original Score

Stuart Craig and Stephenie McMillanJudianna MakovskyJohn Williams

74th Academy Awards

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Best Original ScoreBest Visual Effects

John WilliamsRoger Guyett, Tim Burke, John Richardson and Bill George

77th Academy Awards

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Best Art Direction

Stuart Craig and Stephenie McMillan

78th Academy Awards

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Best Cinematography

Bruno Delbonnel

82nd Academy Awards

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1

Best Art DirectionBest Visual Effects

Stuart Craig and Stephenie McMillanTim Burke, John Richardson, Christian Manz and Nicolas Aithadi

83rd Academy Awards

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2

Best Art DirectionBest MakeupBest Visual Effects

Stuart Craig and Stephenie McMillanNick Dudman, Amanda Knight and Lisa TomblinTim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler and John Richardson

84th Academy Awards

text: Six of the eight films were nominated for a total of 12 Academy Awards.

text: Some critics, fans, and general audiences have expressed disappointment that the Harry Potter series did not win any Oscars for its achievements. However, others have pointed out that certain films in the series had uneven reviews, in contrast to the three films of The Lord of the Rings, for example, which were all critically acclaimed. This has been partially attributed to the Harry Potter franchise going through several directors with their own styles in contrast to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was filmed in one massive undertaking by the same director, writer, and producer.[109][110]

text: Although not successful at the Oscars, the Harry Potter series has gained success in many other award ceremonies, including the annual Saturn Awards and Art Directors Guild Awards. The series has also gained a total of 24 nominations at the British Academy Film Awards presented at the annual BAFTAs, winning several, and 5 nominations at the Grammy Awards.

text: Philosopher's Stone achieved seven BAFTA Award nominations, including Best British Film and Best Supporting Actor for Robbie Coltrane.[111] The film was also nominated for eight Saturn Awards and won for its costumes design.[112] It was also nominated at the Art Directors Guild Awards for its production design[113] and received the Broadcast Film Critics Award for Best Live Action Family Film along with gaining two other nominations.[114]

text: Chamber of Secrets won the award for Best Live Action Family Film in the Phoenix Film Critics Society. It was nominated for seven Saturn Awards, including Best Director and Best Fantasy Film. The film was nominated for four BAFTA Awards and a Grammy Award for John Williams's score. Prisoner of Azkaban won an Audience Award, as well as Best Feature Film, at the BAFTA Awards. The film also won a BMI Film Music award along with being nominated at the Grammy Awards, Visual Effect Society Awards, and the Amanda Awards. Goblet of Fire won a BAFTA award for Best Production Design as well as being nominated at the Saturn Awards, Critic's Choice Awards, and the Visual Effects Society Awards.

text: Order of the Phoenix picked up three awards at the inaugural ITV National Movie Awards.[115] At the Empire Awards, David Yates won Best Director.[116] Composer Nicholas Hooper received a nomination for a World Soundtrack Discovery Award.[117] The film was nominated at the BAFTA Awards, but did not win for Best Production Design or Best Special Visual Effects.[118] Half-Blood Prince was nominated for BAFTA Awards in Production Design and Visual Effects,[119] and it was in the longlists for several other categories, including Best Supporting Actor for Alan Rickman.[120] Amongst other nominations and wins, the film also achieved Best Family Movie at the National Movie Awards as well as Best Live Action Family Film at the Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards, along with being nominated for Best Motion Picture at the Satellite Awards.

text: Deathly Hallows – Part 1 gained two nominations at the BAFTA Awards for Best Make-Up and Hair and Best Visual Effects, along with receiving nominations for the same categories at the Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards. Eduardo Serra's cinematography and Stuart Craig's production design were also nominated in various award ceremonies, and David Yates attained his second win at the Empire Awards, this time for Best Fantasy Film. He also obtained another Best Director nomination at the annual Saturn Awards, which also saw the film gain a Best Fantasy Film nomination.[121][122] Deathly Hallows – Part 2 was released to critical acclaim, gaining a mix of audience awards. Part 2 of Deathly Hallows was also recognised at the Saturn Awards as well as the BAFTA Awards, where the film achieved a win for Best Special Visual Effects.[123]

text: Box office performance

text: As of  2018[update], the Harry Potter film series is the 3rd highest-grossing film franchise of all time, with the eight films released grossing over $7.7 billion worldwide. Without adjusting for inflation, this is higher than the first 22 James Bond films and the six films in the Star Wars franchise.[124] Chris Columbus's Philosopher's Stone became the highest-grossing Harry Potter film worldwide upon completing its theatrical run in 2002, but it was eventually topped by David Yates's Deathly Hallows – Part 2, while Alfonso Cuarón's Prisoner of Azkaban grossed the least.[125][126][127][128]

text: Six films in the Harry Potter franchise — Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Parts 1 & 2 — have to date grossed around $216 million in IMAX theaters worldwide.[129]

text:
Motion picture

Release date

Box office gross

Budget

Ref(s)

United Kingdom

USA & Canada(approx. ticket sales)

Other countries

Worldwide

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

16 November 2001 (2001-11-16)

£66,096,060

$317,575,550(55,976,200)

$657,179,821

$974,755,371

$125 million

[130][131][131][132][133]

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

14 November 2002 (2002-11-14)

£54,780,731

$261,988,482(44,978,900)

$616,991,152

$878,979,634

$100 million

[132][133][134][135]

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

31 May 2004 (2004-05-31)

£45,615,949

$249,541,069(40,183,700)

$547,147,480

$796,688,549

$130 million

[132][133][136]

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

18 November 2005 (2005-11-18)

£48,328,854

$290,013,036(45,188,100)

$606,898,042

$896,911,078

$150 million

[132][133][137][138]

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

11 July 2007 (2007-07-11)

£49,136,969

$292,004,738(42,442,500)

$647,881,191

$939,885,929

$150 million

[132][133][139][140]

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

15 July 2009 (2009-07-15)

£50,713,404

$301,959,197(40,261,200)

$632,457,290

$934,416,487

$250 million

[132][133][141][142]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1

19 November 2010 (2010-11-19)

£52,364,075

$295,983,305(37,503,700)

$664,300,000

$960,283,305

Less than $250 million (official)

[132][133][143][144][145]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2

15 July 2011 (2011-07-15)

£73,094,187

$381,011,219(48,046,800)

$960,500,000

$1,341,511,219

[133][145][146]

Total

£440,269,736

$7009239007659600000♠2,390,076,596

$7009533335497600000♠5,333,354,976

$7009772343157200000♠7,723,431,572

$1.155 billion

[147]

text: All-time rankings

text:
Motion picture

Rank

Ref(s)

All-time(worldwide)

All-time(United States)

All-time(United Kingdom)

Yearly(United States)

Yearly(worldwide)

Opening day(all-time)

Opening weekend(all-time)

Philosopher's Stone

#29

#54

#9

#1

#1

#66

#55

[130]

Chamber of Secrets

#46

#90

#17

#4

#2

#81

#60

[132][134][135]

Prisoner of Azkaban

#62

#106

#33

#6

#2

#47

#49

[132]

Goblet of Fire

#42

#77

#28

#3

#1

#41

#40

[132][137][138]

Order of the Phoenix

#38

#73

#25

#5

#2

#34

#77

[132][139][140]

Half-Blood Prince

#39

#65

#24

#3

#2

#24

#75

[132][141][142]

Deathly Hallows – Part 1

#34

#68

#18

#5

#3

#22

#25

[132][143][144]

Deathly Hallows – Part 2

#10

#27

#7

#1

#1

#3

#12

[146][148]

text: Legacy and influence

text:
"Harry Potter was in the vanguard of a new approach to big-budget film-making. Most modern blockbuster franchises have two things in common: they are based on known properties such as books and comics, and they are steered by respected but little-known directors."
—The Economist[149]

tag: div

text: The Harry Potter films and their success have been retrospectively considered to have had a significant impact on the film industry. They are cited as having helped redefine the Hollywood blockbuster in the 21st century by initiating a shift toward established media franchises forming the basis of successful films. In the wake of the final film's release, Claudia Puig of USA Today wrote that the films "inspired every major studio to try to capture [its] alchemic formula, spawning a range of copycats and wannabes" and "also have shown Hollywood how to make a glossy blockbuster with an eye toward keeping costs down."[150] A 2009 article from The Economist argued that the films were "in the vanguard" of adaptations of established properties being the modern film franchise model, citing The Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man and The Dark Knight Trilogy as examples of successful film series that followed Harry Potter's suit.[149] Furthermore, the practice of splitting the finale of a film series into two back-to-back films began with the success of Deathly Hallows, and it would soon be replicated by The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and The Battle of the Five Armies, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Parts 1 and 2, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Parts 1 and 2, and Avengers: Infinity War and its untitled sequel.[151]

text: The films are also widely credited with singlehandedly signalling the popularity of films based on children's and young adult literature in the 2000s and 2010s, correlating with the book series' own literary influence. Costance Grady and Aja Romano, commenting on the whole Harry Potter franchise's legacy for Vox in light of its 20th anniversary, wrote that youth-targeted literature has since become "a go-to well of ideas for Hollywood," pointing to the successes of The Twilight Saga and The Hunger Games.[152]

text: The series has spawned a vast volume of fan fiction, with nearly 600 thousand inspired stories catalogued.[153]  Youtube hosts many fan films, ranging from amateur productions to full length films.

text: Notes

text: Jump up ^ Not including executive producers.


document_title: Tall Ships' Races

question_text: when was the last time the tall ships were in halifax

root

text: Tall Ships' Races

text: Tall ships[edit]

text: By the 21st century, "tall ship" is often used generically for large, classic, sailing vessels, but is also a technically defined term by Sail Training International. The definitions are subject to various technicalities, but by 2011 there are only two size classes, class A is square-rigged vessels and all other vessels over 40 m LOA, and classes B/C/D are 9.14 m to under 40 m LOA. Participating vessels are manned by a largely cadet or trainee crew who are partaking in sail training, 50 percent of which must be aged between 15–25 years of age and who do not need any previous experience. Thus, tall ship does not describe a specific type of sailing vessel, but rather a monohull sailing vessel of at least 9.4 metres (30 ft) that is conducting sail training and education under sail voyages. Participating ships range from yachts to the large square-rigged sail training ships run by charities, schools and navies of many countries.

tag: p

text: The race[edit]

text: After World War II, tall ships were a dying breed, having lost out to steam-powered ships several decades before. It was a retired solicitor from London, Bernard Morgan, who first dreamed up the idea of bringing young cadets and seamen under training together from around the world to compete in a friendly competition. The Portuguese Ambassador to the UK, Dr Pedro Theotonio Pereira was a huge supporter of this original idea, and believed such a race would bring together the youth of the world's seafaring peoples. These two figures started discussions in 1953 and three years later they saw their vision become a reality.[2] The first Tall Ships' race was held in 1956. It was a race of 20 of the world's remaining large sailing ships. The race was from Torquay, Devon to Lisbon, and was meant to be a last farewell to the era of the great sailing ships. Public interest was so intense, however, that race organizers founded the Sail Training International association to direct the planning of future events. Since then Tall Ships' Races have occurred annually in various parts of the world, with millions of spectators. Today, the race attracts more than a hundred ships, among these some of the largest sailing ships in existence, like the Portuguese Sagres. The 50th Anniversary Tall Ships' Races took place during July and August, 2006, and was started by the patron, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who also started the first race in 1956.[3]

text: Years[edit]

text:
2017: Halmstad (Sweden) - Kotka (Finland) - Turku (Finland) - Klaipėda (Lithuania) - Szczecin (Poland)
2016: Antwerp (Belgium) - Lisbon (Portugal) - Cádiz (Spain) - A Coruña (Spain) - Blyth (United Kingdom)
2015: Belfast (United Kingdom) - Ålesund (Norway) - Kristiansand (Norway) - Aalborg (Denmark)
2014: Harlingen (Netherlands) - Fredrikstad (Norway) - Bergen (Norway) - Esbjerg (Denmark)
2013: Aarhus (Denmark) - Helsinki (Finland) - Riga (Latvia) - Szczecin (Poland)
2012: Saint-Malo (France) – Lisbon (Portugal) – Cádiz (Spain) – A Coruña – Dublin (Ireland)
2011: Waterford (Ireland) – Greenock (Scotland) – Lerwick (Shetland) – Stavanger (Norway) – Halmstad (Sweden)
2010: Antwerp (Belgium) – Aalborg (Denmark) – Kristiansand (Norway) – Hartlepool (United Kingdom)
2009: Trans-Atlantic: Vigo (Spain) - Tenerife (Canary Islands) - Bermuda - Charleston (United States) - Boston (United States) - Halifax (Canada) - Belfast (United Kingdom)
2009: Baltic: Gdynia (Poland) - St Petersburg (Russia) - Turku (Finland) - Klaipėda (Lithuania)
2008: Liverpool (United Kingdom) - Måløy (Norway) - Bergen (Norway) - Den Helder (Netherlands)
2007: Baltic: Aarhus (Denmark) - Kotka (Finland) - Stockholm (Sweden) - Szczecin (Poland)
2007: Mediterranean: Barcelona (Spain) - Genoa (Italy) - Toulon (France) - Alicante (Spain)
2006: Saint Malo (France) - Lisbon (Portugal) - Cádiz (Spain) - A Coruña (Spain) - Antwerp (Belgium)
2005: Waterford (Ireland) - Cherbourg-Octeville (France) - Newcastle-Gateshead (United Kingdom) - Fredrikstad (Norway) - Torbay (United Kingdom) - Santander (Spain)
2004: Antwerp (Belgium) - Aalborg (Denmark) - Stavanger (Norway) - Cuxhaven (Germany)
2003: Gdynia (Poland) - Turku (Finland) - Riga (Latvia) - Travemünde (Germany)
2002: Alicante (Spain) - Málaga (Spain) - A Coruña (Spain) - Santander (Spain) - Portsmouth (United Kingdom)
2001: Antwerp (Belgium) - Ålesund (Norway) - Bergen (Norway) - Esbjerg (Denmark)
2000: Trans-Atlantic: Southampton (United Kingdom) - Cádiz (Spain) - Genoa (Italy) - Cádiz (Spain) - Bermuda (Bermuda) - Boston (United States) - Halifax (Canada) - Amsterdam (Netherlands)
1999: St Malo (France) - Greenock (United Kingdom) - Lerwick (United Kingdom) - Aalborg (Denmark)
1998: Falmouth (United Kingdom) - Lisbon (Portugal) - Vigo (Spain) - Dublin (Ireland)[4]
1997: Aberdeen (United Kingdom) - Trondheim (Norway) - Stavanger (Norway) - Gothenburg (Sweden)
1996: St Petersburg (Russia) - Kotka (Finland) - Turku (Finland) - Copenhagen (Denmark)

tag: ul

text: Incidents[edit]

text: In the 2013 race, the Norwegian vessel Wyvern was shipwrecked between the Swedish islands of Gotland and Öland in the Baltic Sea. The crew were rescued. A man from the Dutch schooner Wylde Swan was presumed drowned after he and two others from the schooner had boarded the Wyvern in an attempt to save it from going down.[5][6]

text: Sail Training International[edit]

text: The Tall Ships' Races are organised by Sail Training International (STI) an international association of national sail training organisations devoted to promoting "the education and development of young people of all nationalities, religions and social backgrounds, through sail training".

text: Some ships that have participated[edit]

text:
Alexander von Humboldt - German Barque[7] (Converted to a botel by 2014).
Amerigo Vespucci - Italian Navy training ship.
Asgard II - Irish sail training ship (lost 2008).
Astrid - Dutch tall ship[8] (lost 2013).
Atyla
Auno - a Norwegian gaff ketch.
Belle Poule (built in 1932) - French Navy training schooner which together with the Etoile, its sister ship, has been participating to the Tall Ship Race since 1958. In 2009, the Belle Poule and the Etoile crossed the Atlantic Ocean for the first time during the Tall Ship Atlantic Challenge.
Challenge Wales - Wales' Tall Ship. Took part in its first Tall Ships Regatta in 2012 and its first Tall Ships Race in 2016.
Christian Radich - Norwegian full-rigged training ship; her homeport is Oslo.
Cisne Branco - Brazilian full-rigged training ship.
Concordia - Canadian Barquentine [7] (lost 2010).
UAM Creoula[9] - a four-masted Portuguese sail training ship
Cuauhtémoc - Mexican Navy officer-training ship (winner on two occasions).
Danmark - Danish full-rigged training ship build in Nakskov, Denmark 1933.
Dar Młodzieży - a three-masted Polish full-rigged ship (built in 1982).
Dar Pomorza - winner of 1972 and 1980 races, a three-masted Polish full-rigged ship (built in 1909, decommissioned in 1980 and replaced by the Dar Mlodziezy, see above).
Eagle - training vessel for the U.S. Coast Guard, most recently participated in 2005.
Eendracht - Dutch schooner owned by Stichting het Zeilend Zeeschip (Foundation the Sailing Seaship).
Schooner Ernestina - the official vessel of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Esmeralda - Training vessel for the Chilean Navy, won in 1982 and 1990.
Étoile - French Navy training schooner which together with the Belle Poule, its sister ship, has been participating to the Tall Ship Race since 1958. In 2009, the Etoile and the Belle Poule crossed the Atlantic Ocean for the first time during the Tall Ship Atlantic Challenge.
Eye of the Wind - participated several times while operated by Adventure under Sail between 1973 and 2000
HMS Falken - a two-masted Swedish Naval training schooner.
Far Barcelona - an 1874 jackt restored at the Consorci El Far[10] as vessel school, Barcelona-Spain.
Georg Stage - Danish Ship.[7]
HMS Gladan - a two-masted Swedish Naval training schooner.
Gloria - Colombian Barque.[7]
Golden Quest - a three-masted Swedish barque.
Gorch Fock (built in 1958).
Gulden leeuw - a three-masted Dutch topsail schooner.[11]
Iskra - Polish Barquentine.[7]
Jens Krogh - a Danish gaff ketch.
Johann Smidt (ex Eendracht) (German Wikipedia) - a two-masted German schooner, class B (length between 30.5 and 46.5 m) winner in 1992 and 2000.
Jolie Brise - a French pilot cutter, three times winner of the Fastnet Ocean Race, two times overall winner of the Tall Ships' Races. Owned maintained and sailed by Dauntsey's School.
Juan de Lángara - Spanish training schooner, won the Friend's Ships Throphy in 2006 and is a regular participant in Tall Ships Races from 1995.
Kaliakra - Bulgarian.[7]
Kruzenshtern - Russian four-masted barque, one of the last genuine windjammers under sail.
Libertad - Argentine Ship.[7]
LOA (da)- a Danish barquentine first entered in 2009.
Lord Nelson - British Barque.[7]
STS Lord Nelson - Jubilee Sailing Trust - Southampton.
Maybe - a 1920s Dutch sailing ketch which took part in the first tall ships race.
Mercator - a Belgian merchant marine three-masted barquentine, winner of the Oslo ~ Oostende race in 1960.
STS Mir - a three-masted Russian training ship.[7]
Mircea - a three-masted Romanian sail training ship.
Moosk[12] - a 100-year-old Cornish Yawl.
Morgenster - a Dutch brig.
Morning Star of Revelation[13] - a British 62 ft (19 m) gaff ketch.
Mutin - French Navy's oldest training ship which was used during WW2 as an operational unit by the British Special Operations Executives (SOE).
Ocean Scout - a Bermuda rigged Oyster 49 ketch launched in 1994 operated by the UK scout sail training charity, Adventures Offshore. It is the elder sister ship to Offshore Scout.
Offshore Scout - a Bermuda rigged Oyster 49 ketch launched in 1997 operated by the UK scout sail training charity, Adventures Offshore. It is the elder sister ship to Ocean Scout.
Pelican of London - a UK main-mast barquentine.
Pogoria - a three-masted Polish barquentine (built in 1980).
Prince William
Roald Amundsen - a German brig ST G 508.[14]
TS Royalist - TS Royalist is a brig owned and operated as a sail training ship by the Sea Cadet Corps of the United Kingdom tall ships.
Sagita - a Danish schooner.
NRP Sagres - Portuguese training ship.
Sedov - Russian Barque.[7]
Seute Deern II (ex Noona Dan) (German Wikipedia) - a two-masted German ketch, former school ship.
Shtandart - replica of a Russian 18th century frigate (built in 1999).
Skibladner II - a Danish gaff ketch
The Sørlandet[15] - Norway, the oldest operative full-rigged ship in the world.
Stad Amsterdam - Dutch clipper, built as a charter and cruise ship. She won in 2001.
Statsraad Lehmkuhl - a three-masted Norwegian barque whose homeport is Bergen.
Stavros S Niarchos - British sail training ship.
The Swan - Shetland ship.
Swan fan Makkum - Dutch Brigantine.[7]
INS Tarangini - a three-masted Indian barque.
Tecla" Dutch Ketch.
SV Tenacious - Jubilee Sailing Trust - Southampton.
HMS Trincomalee - Britain's oldest warship afloat. Will remain in Hartlepool.
Vega Gamleby - Swedish schooner, regular participant since 2013.
Windrose (of Amsterdam) - Fastest on the line, 2003.


document_title: Roth IRA

question_text: which two us senators proposed and helped pass the investment platform roth ira

text: Roth IRA

text: Overview[edit]

text: A Roth IRA can be an individual retirement account containing investments in securities, usually common stocks and bonds, often through mutual funds (although other investments, including derivatives, notes, certificates of deposit, and real estate are possible). A Roth IRA can also be an individual retirement annuity, which is an annuity contract or an endowment contract purchased from a life insurance company. As with all IRAs, the Internal Revenue Service mandates specific eligibility and filing status requirements. A Roth IRA's main advantages are its tax structure and the additional flexibility that this tax structure provides. Also, there are fewer restrictions on the investments that can be made in the plan than many other tax-advantaged plans, and this adds somewhat to their popularity, though the investment options available depend on the trustee (or the place where the plan is established).

text: The total contributions allowed per year to all IRAs is the lesser of one's taxable compensation (which is not the same as adjusted gross income) and the limit amounts as seen below (this total may be split up between any number of traditional and Roth IRAs. In the case of a married couple, each spouse may contribute the amount listed):

text:
Age 49 and Below
Age 50 and Above

1998–2001
$2,000
$2,000

2002–2004
$3,000
$3,500

2005
$4,000
$4,500

2006–2007
$4,000
$5,000

2008–2012
$5,000
$6,000

2013–2018[1]
$5,500
$6,500

tag: table

text: History[edit]

text: Originally called an "IRA Plus", the idea was proposed by Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon and Senator William Roth of Delaware in 1989.[2] The Packwood–Roth plan would have allowed individuals to invest up to $2,000 in an account with no immediate tax deductions, but the earnings could later be withdrawn tax-free at retirement.[2]

text: The Roth IRA was established by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) and named for its chief legislative sponsor, Senator William Roth of Delaware. In 2000, 46.3 million taxpayers held IRA accounts worth a total of $2.6 trillion in value according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Only a little over $77 billion of that amount was held in Roth IRAs. By 2007, the number of IRA owners has jumped to over 50 million taxpayers with $3.3 trillion invested.[3]

text: In 1997, then Senator William Roth (R-Del) wanted to restore the traditional IRA which had been repealed in 1986, and the upfront tax deduction that goes with it. Under congressional budget rules, which work within a 10-year window, the revenue cost of giving that tax break to everyone was too high. So his staff limited deductible IRAs to people with very low income, and made Roth IRAs (initially with income limitations) available to others. That slid the revenue cost outside the 10-year window and got the legislation out from under the budget rules.[4]

text: Economists have warned about exploding future revenue losses associated with Roth IRAs. With these accounts, the government is "bringing in more now, but giving up much more in the future," said economist and Forbes contributor Leonard Burman. In a study for The Tax Policy Center, Burman calculated that from 2014 to 2046, the Treasury would lose a total of $14 billion as a result of IRA-related provisions in the 2006 tax law. The losses stem from both Roth conversions and the ability to make nondeductible IRA contributions and then immediately convert them to Roths.[5]

text: Differences from a traditional IRA[edit]

text: In contrast to a traditional IRA, contributions to a Roth IRA are not tax-deductible. Withdrawals are tax-free under certain conditions (for example, if the withdrawal is only on the principal portion of the account, or if the owner is at least 59½ years old). A Roth IRA has fewer withdrawal restrictions than traditional IRAs. Transactions inside a Roth IRA (including capital gains, dividends, and interest) do not incur a current tax liability.

text: Advantages[edit]

text:
Direct contributions to a Roth IRA (principal) may be withdrawn tax and penalty-free at any time.[6] Earnings may be withdrawn tax and penalty-free after 5 years if the condition of age 59½ (or other qualifying condition) is also met. Rollover, converted (before age 59½) contributions held in a Roth IRA may be withdrawn tax and penalty-free after 5 years. Distributions from a Roth IRA do not increase Adjusted Gross Income. This differs from a traditional IRA, where all withdrawals are taxed as ordinary income, and a penalty applies for withdrawals before age 59½. (Even capital gains on stocks or other securities held in a regular taxable account–so long as they are held for at least a year–are generally treated more advantageously than traditional IRA withdrawals, being taxed not as Ordinary Income, but at the lower Long-Term Capital Gain rate.) This potentially higher tax rate for withdrawals of capital gains from a traditional IRA is a quid pro quo for the deduction taken against ordinary income when putting money into the IRA.
Up to a lifetime maximum $10,000 in earnings, withdrawals are considered qualified (tax-free) if the money is used to acquire a principal residence for the Roth IRA owner. This principal residence must be acquired by the Roth IRA owner, their spouse, or their lineal ancestors and descendants. The owner or qualified relative who receives such a distribution must not have owned a home in the previous 24 months.
Contributions may be made to a Roth IRA even if the owner participates in a qualified retirement plan such as a 401(k). (Contributions may be made to a traditional IRA in this circumstance, but they may not be tax deductible).
If a Roth IRA owner dies, and his/her spouse becomes the sole beneficiary of that Roth IRA while also owning a separate Roth IRA, the spouse is permitted to combine the two Roth IRAs into a single plan without penalty.
If the Roth IRA owner expects that the tax rate applicable to withdrawals from a traditional IRA in retirement will be higher than the tax rate applicable to the funds earned to make the Roth IRA contributions before retirement, then there may be a tax advantage to making contributions to a Roth IRA over a traditional IRA or similar vehicle while working. There is no current tax deduction, but money going into the Roth IRA is taxed at the taxpayer's current marginal tax rate, and will not be taxed at the expected higher future effective tax rate when it comes out of the Roth IRA. There is always risk, however, that retirement savings will be less than anticipated, which would produce a lower tax rate for distributions in retirement. Assuming substantially equivalent tax rates, this is largely a question of age. For example, at the age of 20, one is likely to be in a low tax bracket, and if one is already saving for retirement at that age, the income in retirement is quite likely to qualify for a higher rate, but at the age of 55, one may be in peak earning years and likely to be taxed at a higher tax rate, so retirement income would tend to be lower than income at this age and therefore taxed at a lower rate.
Assets in the Roth IRA can be passed on to heirs.
The Roth IRA does not require distributions based on age. All other tax-deferred retirement plans, including the related Roth 401(k),[7] require withdrawals to begin by April 1 of the calendar year after the owner reaches age 70½. If the account holder does not need the money and wants to leave it to their heirs, a Roth can be an effective way to accumulate tax-free income. Beneficiaries who inherit Roth IRAs are subject to the minimum distribution rules.
Roth IRAs have a higher "effective" contribution limit than traditional IRAs, since the nominal contribution limit is the same for both traditional and Roth IRAs, but the post-tax contribution in a Roth IRA is equivalent to a larger pre-tax contribution in a traditional IRA that will be taxed upon withdrawal. For example, a contribution of the 2008 limit of $5,000 to a Roth IRA may be equivalent to a traditional IRA contribution of $6667 (assuming a 25% tax rate at both contribution and withdrawal). In 2008, one cannot contribute $6667 to a traditional IRA due to the contribution limit, so the post-tax Roth contribution may be larger.
On estates large enough to be subject to estate taxes, a Roth IRA can reduce estate taxes since tax dollars have already been subtracted. A traditional IRA is valued at the pre-tax level for estate tax purposes.
Most employer sponsored retirement plans tend to be pre-tax dollars and are similar, in that respect, to a traditional IRA, so if additional retirement savings are made beyond an employer-sponsored plan, a Roth IRA can diversify tax risk.
Unlike distributions from a regular IRA, qualified Roth distributions do not affect the calculation of taxable social security benefits.[8]
Roth Conversions not only convert highly taxed IRA income to tax-free income, but if the IRA holds alternative assets such as REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts), Leasing Programs, Oil and Gas Drilling Partnerships and Royalty Partnerships, a Fair Market Valuation (FMV) or "Substantially Discounted Roth-Conversion" may provide reductions in the conversion income tax by up to 75%, possibly more, depending on assets and the Fair Market Valuation.
Roth Conversions using the FMV or "Substantially Discounted Roth-Conversion" may reduce the estate tax attributed to IRA's on large estates by up to 75%, or more, depending on the assets held at the time of conversion.
Roth Conversions main benefit is in the conversion of highly taxed IRA income to tax-free Roth income, however Roth-Conversion income does not add to MAGI, hence reducing the taxpayers Medicare Part B Premiums (another tax).
FMV or "Substantially Discounted Roth-Conversion" may allow the taxpayer to reduce RMDs by up to 75%.

text: Disadvantages[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
Funds that reside in a Roth IRA cannot be used as collateral for a loan per current IRS rules and therefore cannot be used for financial leveraging or as a cash management tool for investment purposes.
Contributions to a Roth IRA are not tax deductible. By contrast, contributions to a traditional IRA are tax deductible (within income limits). Therefore, someone who contributes to a traditional IRA instead of a Roth IRA gets an immediate tax savings equal to the amount of the contribution multiplied by their marginal tax rate while someone who contributes to a Roth IRA does not realize this immediate tax reduction. Also, by contrast, contributions to most employer sponsored retirement plans (such as a 401(k), 403(b), Simple IRA or SEP IRA) are tax deductible with no income limits because they reduce a taxpayer's adjusted gross income.
Eligibility to contribute to a Roth IRA phases out at certain income limits. By contrast, contributions to most tax deductible employer sponsored retirement plans have no income limit.
Contributions to a Roth IRA do not reduce a taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI). By contrast, contributions to a traditional IRA or most employer sponsored retirement plans reduce AGI. Reducing one's AGI has a benefit (besides reducing taxable income) if it puts the AGI below some threshold to make the taxpayer eligible for tax credits or deductions that would not be available at the higher AGI with a Roth IRA. The amount of credits and deductions may increase as the taxpayer slides down the phaseout scale. Examples include the child tax credit, the earned income credit, the student loan interest deduction.
A Roth IRA contribution is taxed at the taxpayer's current income tax rate, which is higher than the income tax rate during retirement for most people. This is because most people have a lower income, that falls in a lower tax bracket, during retirement than during their working years. (A lower tax rate can also occur if Congress lowers income tax rates before retirement.) By contrast, contributions to traditional IRAs or employer-sponsored tax-deductible retirement plans result in an immediate tax savings equal to the taxpayer's current marginal tax bracket multiplied by the amount of the contribution. The higher the taxpayer's current marginal tax rate, the higher the potential disadvantage. However, this issue is more complicated because withdrawals from traditional IRA or employer sponsored tax deductible retirement plans are fully taxable, up to 85% of Social Security income is taxable, personal residence mortgage interest deduction decreases as the mortgage is paid down, and there may be pension plan income, investment income and other factors.
A taxpayer who pays state income taxes and who contributes to a Roth IRA (instead of a traditional IRA or a tax deductible employer sponsored retirement plan) will have to pay state income taxes on the amount contributed to the Roth IRA in the year the money is earned. However, if the taxpayer retires to a state with a lower income tax rate, or no income taxes, then the taxpayer will have given up the opportunity to avoid paying state income taxes altogether on the amount of the Roth IRA contribution by instead contributing to a traditional IRA or a tax deductible employer sponsored retirement plan, because when the contributions are withdrawn from the traditional IRA or tax deductible plan in retirement, the taxpayer will then be a resident of the low or no income tax state, and will have avoided paying the state income tax altogether as a result of moving to a different state before the income tax became due.
The perceived tax benefit may never be realized. That is, one might not live to retirement or much beyond, in which case the tax structure of a Roth only serves to reduce an estate that may not have been subject to tax. To fully realize the tax benefit, one must live until one's Roth IRA contributions have been withdrawn and exhausted. By contrast, with a traditional IRA, tax might never be collected at all, such as if one dies before retirement with an estate below the tax threshold, or retires with income below the tax threshold. (To benefit from this exemption, the beneficiary must be named in the appropriate IRA beneficiary form. A beneficiary inheriting the IRA solely through a will is not eligible for the estate tax exemption. Additionally, the beneficiary will be subject to income tax unless the inheritance is a Roth IRA.) Heirs will have to pay taxes on withdrawals from traditional IRA assets they inherit, and must continue to take mandatory distributions (although they will be based on their life expectancy). It is also possible that tax laws may change by the time one reaches retirement age.
Congress may change the rules that allow for tax-free withdrawal of Roth IRA contributions. Therefore, someone who contributes to a traditional IRA is guaranteed to realize an immediate tax benefit, whereas someone who contributes to a Roth IRA must wait for a number of years before realizing the tax benefit, and that person assumes the risk that the rules might be changed during the interim. On the other hand, taxing earnings on an account which were promised to be untaxed may be seen as a violation of contract and completely defeat the purpose of Roth IRAs as encouraging saving for retirement – individuals contributing to a Roth IRA now may in fact be saving themselves from new, possibly higher income tax obligations in the future. However, the federal government is not restricted by the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits "Law[s] impairing the Obligation of Contracts". By its terms, this prohibition applies only to state governments.

text: Double taxation[edit]

text: Double taxation may still occur within these tax sheltered investment plans. For example, foreign dividends may be taxed at their point of origin, and the IRS does not recognize this tax as a creditable deduction. There is some controversy over whether this violates existing Joint Tax Treaties, such as the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America With Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital.[9]

text: For Canadians with U.S. Roth IRAs: A new rule (2008) provides that Roth IRAs (as defined in section 408A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code) and similar plans are considered to be pensions. Accordingly, distributions from a Roth IRA (as well as other similar plans) to a resident of Canada will generally be exempt from Canadian tax to the extent that they would have been exempt from U.S. tax if paid to a resident of the U.S. Additionally, a resident of Canada may elect to defer any taxation in Canada with respect to income accrued in a Roth IRA but not distributed by the Roth IRA, until and to the extent that a distribution is made from the Roth IRA or any plan substituted therefor. The effect of these rules is that, in most cases, no portion of the Roth IRA will be subject to taxation in Canada.

text: However, where an individual makes a contribution to a Roth IRA while they are a resident of Canada (other than rollover contributions from another Roth IRA), the Roth IRA will lose its status as a "pension" for purposes of the Treaty with respect to the accretions from the time such contribution is made. Income accretions from such time will be subject to tax in Canada in the year of accrual. In effect, the Roth IRA will be bifurcated into a "frozen" pension that will continue to enjoy the benefit of the exemption for pensions and a non-pension (essentially a savings account) that will not.

text: Eligibility[edit]

text: Income limits[edit]

text: Congress has limited who can contribute to a Roth IRA based upon income. A taxpayer can contribute the maximum amount listed at the top of the page only if their Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) is below a certain level (the bottom of the range shown below). Otherwise, a phase-out of allowed contributions runs proportionally throughout the MAGI ranges shown below. Once MAGI hits the top of the range, no contribution is allowed at all; however, a minimum of $200 may be contributed as long as MAGI is below the top of the range (e.g., a single 40-year-old with MAGI $124,999 may still contribute $200 to a Roth IRA vs. $30). Excess Roth IRA contributions may be recharacterized into Traditional IRA contributions as long as the combined contributions do not exceed that tax year's limit. The Roth IRA MAGI phase out ranges for 2018 are:[10]

text:
Single filers: Up to $120,000 (to qualify for a full contribution); $120,000–$135,000 (to be eligible for a partial contribution)
Joint filers: Up to $189,000 (to qualify for a full contribution); $189,000–$199,000 (to be eligible for a partial contribution)
Married filing separately (if the couple lived together for any part of the year): $0 (to qualify for a full contribution); $0–$10,000 (to be eligible for a partial contribution).

text: The lower number represents the point at which the taxpayer is no longer allowed to contribute the maximum yearly contribution. The upper number is the point as of which the taxpayer is no longer allowed to contribute at all. People who are married and living together, but who file separately, are only allowed to contribute a relatively small amount.

text: However, once a Roth IRA is established, the balance in the plan remains tax-sheltered, even if the taxpayer's income rises above the threshold. (The thresholds are just for annual eligibility to contribute, not for eligibility to maintain a Roth IRA.)

text: To be eligible, one must meet the earned income minimum requirement. In order to make a contribution, one must have taxable compensation (not taxable income from investments). If one makes only $2,000 in taxable compensation, one's maximum IRA contribution is $2,000.

text: If a taxpayer's income exceeds the income limits, they may still be able to effectively contribute by using a "backdoor" contribution process (see #Traditional IRA conversion as a workaround to Roth IRA income limits below).

text: Contribution limits[edit]

text: Contributions to both a Roth IRA and a traditional IRA are limited to the total amount allowed for either of them.[11] Generally, the contribution cannot exceed your earned income for the year in question. The one exception is for a "spousal IRA" where a contribution can be made for a spouse with little or no earned income provided the other spouse has sufficient earned income and the spouses file a joint tax return.[12]

text: Conversion rules[edit]

text: The government allows people to convert Traditional IRA funds (and some other untaxed IRA funds) to Roth IRA funds by paying income tax on any account balance being converted that has not already been taxed (e.g., the Traditional IRA balance minus any non-deductible contributions).[13]

text: Prior to 2010, two circumstances prohibited conversions: Modified Adjusted Gross Income exceeding $100,000 or the participant's tax filing status is Married Filing Separately. These limitations were removed as part of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.

text: Traditional IRA conversion as a workaround to Roth IRA income limits[edit]

text: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[14] This allows for "backdoor" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA.

text: One major caveat to the entire "backdoor" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the "backdoor" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter.[13]

text: For example, if someone has contributed $10,000 post-tax and $30,000 pre-tax to a traditional IRA and wants to convert the post tax $10,000 into a Roth, the pro-rated amount (ratio of taxable contributions to total contributions) is taxable. In this example, $7500 of the post tax contribution is considered taxable when converting it to a Roth IRA. The pro-rata calculation is made based on all traditional IRA contributions across all the individual's traditional IRA accounts (even if they are in different institutions).

text: Distributions[edit]

text: Returns of your regular contributions from your Roth IRA(s) are always withdrawn tax and penalty-free.[6] Eligible (tax and penalty-free) distributions of earnings must fulfill two requirements. First, the seasoning period of five years since the opening of the Roth IRA account must have elapsed, and secondly a justification must exist such as retirement or disability. The simplest justification is reaching 59.5 years of age, at which point qualified withdrawals may be made in any amount on any schedule. Becoming disabled or being a "first time" home buyer can provide justification for limited qualified withdrawals. Finally, although one can take distributions from a Roth IRA under the substantially equal periodic payments (SEPP) rule without paying a 10% penalty,[15] any interest[vague] earned in the IRA will be subject to tax[16]—a substantial penalty which forfeits the primary tax benefits of the Roth IRA.

text: Inherited Roth IRAs[edit]

text: When a spouse inherits a Roth IRA:

text:
the spouse can combine the Roth IRA with his or her own Roth IRA
the spouse can make contributions and otherwise control the account
required minimum distributions do not apply
income tax does not apply to distributions
estate tax (if any) does not apply at the time of transfer

text: When a non-spouse inherits a Roth IRA:

text:
the non-spouse cannot combine the Roth IRA with his or her own
the non-spouse cannot make additional contributions
required minimum distributions apply
income tax does not apply to distributions, if the Roth IRA was established for at least five years before the distribution occurs.[17]
estate tax (if any) applies

text: In addition, the beneficiary may elect to choose from one of two methods of distribution. The first option is to receive the entire distribution by December 31 of the fifth year following the year of the IRA owner's death. The second option is to receive portions of the IRA as distributions over the life of the beneficiary, terminating upon the death of the beneficiary and passing on to a secondary beneficiary. If the beneficiary of the Roth IRA is a trust, the trust must distribute the entire assets of the Roth IRA by December 31 of the fifth year following the year of the IRA owner's death, unless there is a "Look Through" clause, in which case the distributions of the Roth IRA are based on the Single Life Expectancy table over the life of the beneficiary, terminating upon the death of the beneficiary. Subtract one (1) from the "Single Life Expectancy" for each successive year. The age of the beneficiary is determined on 12/31 of the first year after the year that the owner died.