document_title: Harry Potter (film series)

question_text: who directed the last three 'harry potter' movies

question_tokens: who directed the last three ' 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.[11]

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).[12] 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.[13] 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.[14]

text: Although Steven Spielberg initially negotiated to direct the first film, he declined the offer.[15] Spielberg wanted the adaptation to be an animated film, with American actor Haley Joel Osment providing Harry Potter's voice.[16] 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".[17] 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."[18]

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.[19] Petersen and Reiner both pulled out of the running in March 2000.[20] It was then narrowed down to Columbus, Gilliam, Parker, and Silberling.[21] Rowling's first choice was Terry Gilliam.[22] 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.[23]

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.[24] David Heyman was confirmed to produce the film.[23] Rowling received a large amount of creative control for the film, an arrangement that Columbus did not mind.[25]

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.[26]

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."[11]

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.[11] (This screen test footage was released via the first set of Ultimate Editions in 2009.)[27] 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.[11][28]

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.[29]

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."[11][28]

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).[30]

text:
Motion Picture
Director
Writer
Producer(s) [n 1]
Composer
Novel by J. K. Rowling

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Chris Columbus
Steve Kloves
David Heyman
John Williams
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
Chris Columbus, David Heyman & Mark Radcliffe
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Mike Newell
David Heyman
Patrick Doyle
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
David Yates
Michael Goldenberg
David Heyman & David Barron
Nicholas Hooper
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Steve Kloves
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1
David Heyman, David Barron & J. K. Rowling
Alexandre Desplat
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.[31]

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.[32]

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".[33]

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."[34] 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][35]

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,[36] but he did not want to return for the third film, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, claiming he was "burned out".[37] 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.[38]

text: Because Cuarón decided not to direct the fourth instalment, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, a new director had to be selected.[39] 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.[34][39] 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".[40][41] 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.[39][40][41]

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]."[42]

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."[33] Producer Tanya Seghatchian said they were "more adventurous" in choosing a director for the third film and went straight to Alfonso Cuarón.[33] 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.[33] David Yates directed the final films after David Heyman thought him capable of handling the edgy, emotional, and political material of the later novels.[43]

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.[34][39] Mike Newell noted that each director had a different heroism, and David Yates views the first four films "respectfully and enjoy[s] them."[40][41] 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.[44]

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.[45]

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."[46]

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.'"[47] 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."[47]

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.[50]

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.[52][53] "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."[54] In the last film, Craig used a digital model instead of a miniature to "embrace the latest technology".[53]

text: On the method of creating the sets, Craig said he often started by sketching ideas onto a blank sheet of paper.[55] 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".[56]

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.[53]

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.[52]

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.[57] 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.[58] Chris Columbus said the series' vivid colouring decreased as each film was made.[34][59]

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.[60] 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".[61]

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.[62] 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."[61][63]

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.[64] 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."[65] Desplat returned to score Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 in 2011.[66]

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.[67] 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.[68]

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.[69] Cinesite was involved in producing both miniature and digital effects for the films.[70] 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."[33]

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!".[71] 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.[72] 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.[73]

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.[74] 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.[75] Part 1 was originally scheduled to be released in 3D and 2D,[76] 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.[77]

text: The television broadcast rights for the series in the United States are currently held by Disney–ABC Domestic Television, which typically airs the films on the Freeform network. Disney's contract is expected to end in June 2018, after which, NBCUniversal will take control of the rights, after their deal with Warner Bros. was made in August 2016.[78] The film series has accrued nearly 1.3 billion viewings since their television debut—the highest-watched franchise in television broadcast history.[79]

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.[34][80][81][82][83] 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,[84][85][86] 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".[87]

text: Critical and public response

text:
Motion Picture
Rotten Tomatoes
Metacritic
CinemaScore

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
80% (194 reviews)[88]
64 (35 reviews)[89]
A[90]

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
82% (230 reviews)[91]
63 (35 reviews)[92]
A+[90]

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
91% (250 reviews)[93]
82 (40 reviews)[94]
A[90]

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
88% (247 reviews)[95]
81 (38 reviews)[96]
A[90]

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
78% (244 reviews)[97]
71 (37 reviews)[98]
A−[90]

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
84% (268 reviews)[99]
78 (36 reviews)[100]
A−[90]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1
78% (262 reviews)[101]
65 (42 reviews)[102]
A[90]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
96% (311 reviews)[103]
87 (41 reviews)[104]
A[90]

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.[105][106]

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." [107] 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." [107]

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.[108][109]

text:
Motion Picture
Academy Award nomination
Academy Award nominee
Academy Award ceremony

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Best Art Direction
Best Costume Design
Best Original Score
Stuart Craig and Stephenie McMillan
Judianna Makovsky
John Williams
74th Academy Awards

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Best Original Score
Best Visual Effects
John Williams
Roger 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 Direction
Best Visual Effects
Stuart Craig and Stephenie McMillan
Tim Burke, John Richardson, Christian Manz and Nicolas Aithadi
83rd Academy Awards

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
Best Art Direction
Best Makeup
Best Visual Effects
Stuart Craig and Stephenie McMillan
Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight and Lisa Tomblin
Tim 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.[110][111]

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.[112] The film was also nominated for eight Saturn Awards and won for its costumes design.[113] It was also nominated at the Art Directors Guild Awards for its production design[114] and received the Broadcast Film Critics Award for Best Live Action Family Film along with gaining two other nominations.[115]

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.[116] At the Empire Awards, David Yates won Best Director.[117] Composer Nicholas Hooper received a nomination for a World Soundtrack Discovery Award.[118] The film was nominated at the BAFTA Awards, but did not win for Best Production Design or Best Special Visual Effects.[119] Half-Blood Prince was nominated for BAFTA Awards in Production Design and Visual Effects,[120] and it was in the longlists for several other categories, including Best Supporting Actor for Alan Rickman.[121] 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.[122][123] 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.[124]

text: Box office performance

text: As of 2015[update], the Harry Potter film series is the 4th 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.[125] 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.[126][127][128][129]

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.[130]

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
[131][132][132][133][134]

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
[133][134][135][136]

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
[133][134][137]

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
[133][134][138][139]

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
[133][134][140][141]

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
[133][134][142][143]

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)
[133][134][144][145][146]

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
[134][146][147]

Total
£440,269,736
$7009239007659600000♠2,390,076,596
$7009533335497600000♠5,333,354,976
$7009772343157200000♠7,723,431,572
$1.155 billion
[148]

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
[131]

Chamber of Secrets
#46
#90
#17
#4
#2
#81
#60
[133][135][136]

Prisoner of Azkaban
#62
#106
#33
#6
#2
#47
#49
[133]

Goblet of Fire
#42
#77
#28
#3
#1
#41
#40
[133][138][139]

Order of the Phoenix
#38
#73
#25
#5
#2
#34
#77
[133][140][141]

Half-Blood Prince
#39
#65
#24
#3
#2
#24
#75
[133][142][143]

Deathly Hallows – Part 1
#34
#68
#18
#5
#3
#22
#25
[133][144][145]

Deathly Hallows – Part 2
#8
#27
#7
#1
#1
#2
#8
[147][149]

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[150]

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."[151] 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.[150] 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.[152]

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, The Hunger Games and The Divergent Series.[153]

text: Notes

text: Jump up ^ Not including executive producers.

tag: ol


document_title: One for the Road (Cheers)

question_text: who knocks on the door at the end of cheers

root

text: One for the Road (Cheers)

text: Synopsis[edit]

text: Background[edit]

text: The television series Cheers follows the fortunes and inter-relationships of a group of Bostonians who meet regularly at "Cheers", their local bar. Sam Malone (Ted Danson), a ladies' man, former baseball player, and bartender, and Diane Chambers (Shelley Long), a college graduate student, and cocktail waitress, had on-and-off relationships throughout first five seasons of the program (1982–1987) until Diane left Boston to pursue a writing career in the season five finale, "I Do, Adieu" (1987). This was Shelley Long's last contracted appearance as Diane Chambers. Six years after the season five finale, the Sam and Diane storyline is resurrected with a special guest appearance by Shelley Long and then concluded during the third part of this final episode.

tag: p

text: During season eleven there are many transformations before the finale. Woody Boyd (Woody Harrelson), another bartender at Cheers, is married to socialite Kelly Gaines (Jackie Swanson), expecting a child with her, and has been running to be a councilmember of the Boston City Council. Carla Tortelli (Rhea Perlman) has gone through husbands and flings and is currently a single mother. Norm Peterson (George Wendt) is still semi-unemployed. Cliff Clavin (John Ratzenberger) is still a postal carrier living with his mother. Frasier Crane (Kelsey Grammer) and Lilith Sternin (Bebe Neuwirth) face marital problems, including Lilith's affair with another man. After her failed relationships with rich men in the past, the bar manager Rebecca Howe (Kirstie Alley) and the plumber Don Santry (Tom Berenger) start dating each other in the preceding episode, "The Guy Can't Help It" (1993). Meanwhile, Sam faces up to his sexual addiction and begins to attend group therapy.

text: The episode ran for 98 minutes, including commercials, when it was originally broadcast.[3] This episode was rebroadcast on August 19, 1993, but was trimmed to 90-minutes.[4] In syndicated and online reruns, this episode was split into three parts, but the DVD release has the original, uncut version.

text: Plot[edit]

text: The episode begins with Frasier writing a political speech for Woody, who has trouble doing it himself. Rebecca rejects plumber Don Santry's (Tom Berenger)[note a] proposal accidentally because she is too excited to accept it, causing him to break up with her. Sam struggles with his sex addiction and wants to avoid watching Kim Alexis on television. Diane Chambers, making her first appearance on the series after six years, appears on television, accepting an award for outstanding writing of a television movie, surprising Sam. Diane calls Sam at the bar to thank him for the congratulatory telegram he sent earlier. Diane accepts Sam's invitation to return to Boston, but Sam reveals to Norm that he doubts her confirmation.

text: The following day, Cliff wants to be promoted by the head of the postal department, Marty Feldman, who often hires his own relatives rather than hard-working employees by merit, like Cliff. Frasier fails to correct Woody's grammar. Norm begs Woody to hire him as a city accountant. Rebecca arrives an emotional mess in the same dress she wore the previous day. Then Diane arrives with her "husband" Reed (Mark Harelik), surprising Sam. Sam uses Rebecca, who is grieving her love loss, as his pretend wife. At Melville's restaurant, when Don enters and re-proposes, Rebecca finally accepts in front of the others, ruining Sam's charade. After Rebecca and Don leave, Reed's partner Kevin (Anthony Heald) arrives to confront him for "cheating" with Diane, who clearly was not married. Now alone at the table, after Kevin and Don leave, Sam and Diane both come to terms with the fact they have no family of their own. Diane admits to Sam that she broke her promise to return to him after six months in the episode "I Do, Adieu" (1987). In fact, her manuscript was rejected by publishers but then became a television movie prompting her to stay in Los Angeles for six years looking for greater success. When Diane bids Sam farewell and is about to leave, he stops her and convinces her they should rekindle their relationship for old times' sake.

text: The next day Woody gives Norm a job with the city. Rebecca marries Don but secretly regrets it, feeling he is too good for her. Cliff is promoted to postal assistant supervisor after giving Marty gifts. Sam and Diane walk in and announce their engagement. His friends disapprove. Having enough of their disapproval, and going years without a family, Sam leaves the bar with Diane. On the plane, they begin to reconsider their decision to be together again. As the flight is delayed, they return to the airport terminal and amicably agree to part ways. Diane goes to Los Angeles, and Sam returns to Cheers to see his friends again. While Sam and his gang celebrate the reunion, Rebecca announces happily that Don has a job with the sewer department and leaves excitedly with the tickets for their honeymoon trip. After the rest of the gang head home, Norm stays behind and tells Sam that he knew he would return to Boston for his "one true love", saying: "You'll always come back to her."[note b] After Norm leaves, someone (Bob Broder[note c]) knocks on the door. Sam replies, "Sorry, we're closed," then walks over and straightens a picture of Geronimo in honor to Coach Ernie Pantusso[note d] hanging on the back wall, and then exits into the corridor toward the pool room. (In the original broadcast, after the closing credits, the text reads "Thanks for having us over on all those Thursday nights." with the show's logo appearing.)

text:
^a Tom Berenger's character Don Santry first appeared in the previous episode, "The Guy Can't Help It".
^b Time magazine implied the bar was Sam's true love.[5] However, one television critic from the Corpus Christi Caller-Times said, "[T]he character Norm Peterson didn't tell Sam that the bar was his only true love. That sentiment was left to the viewer to surmise."[6]
^c Bob Broder was an agent for the show's creators.[7]
^d See #Critical reviews.

tag: ul

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Main cast

Ted Danson as Sam Malone
Kirstie Alley as Rebecca Howe
Woody Harrelson as Woody Boyd
Rhea Perlman as Carla Tortelli
John Ratzenberger as Cliff Clavin
George Wendt as Norm Peterson
Kelsey Grammer as Frasier Crane

Guest cast

Shelley Long as Diane Chambers
Tom Berenger as Don Santry
Mark Harelik as Reed Manchester
Anthony Heald as Kevin
Kim Alexis as herself
Mike Ditka as himself
Mitchell Lichtenstein as Waiter
Lena Banks as Stewardess

Recurring cast

Jackie Swanson as Kelly Boyd
Paul Willson as Paul Krapence
Tim Cunningham as Tim
Steve Gianelli as Steve
Alan Koss as Alan
Philip Perlman as Phil
Peter Schreiner as Pete

tag: table

text: Production[edit]

text: Three hundred people attended the filming of the finale at Paramount Studios' Stage 25 in Los Angeles on Wednesday, March 31, 1993, from 7:20 p.m. to 2:15 a.m.[8] Because of Shelley Long's commitment to the CBS sitcom Good Advice, the finale's bar scene ending, where the series main cast gather as their own respective characters, was shot without her on Wednesday, April 7, 1993,[9] after the penultimate episode, "The Guy Can't Help It", was filmed completely on the same day.[8][note 1] However, the ending was concealed from the general public and the studio audience until the episode was first broadcast.[8] Before her special guest appearance in this episode, Shelley Long's reprise as Diane Chambers was rumored in 1989 when she appeared with Ted Danson at the premiere of one of his movies, Cousins. A spokesperson for Paramount Television denied these rumors.[10] Long appeared as herself for the 200th episode special in 1990, hosted by John McLaughlin, along with other surviving cast members at the time.[11]

text: United States President Bill Clinton was invited to be part of the finale, but declined the offer.[12] Brandon Tartikoff, former executive of NBC and former chief of Paramount Studios, and Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau appeared in the finale as uncredited bar extras.[9] Bob Broder, agent for the show's creators, also made an uncredited appearance in the final moments of the show as the "man" who is told by Sam that the bar is closed.[7]

text: Promotion[edit]

text:
"Bars across the country are holding parties tonight. At the 50,000-seat SkyDome in Toronto, organizers are screening the last episode free and expecting the largest public gathering ever for a TV viewing."[13]

Daniel Cerone from Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1993

text: The final episode was promoted massively, including in the media, before its initial airing. NBC executives expected a rating of 65  percent of total television households.[14] Sources on Madison Avenue estimated a Nielsen rating of 33–40s and a share of 50–70; one expected a rating of 37–38 and a share of 60.[15] Each 30-second commercial for the original broadcast cost $650,000; the total number of commercials that aired on the initial broadcast was 25 to 30.[16][17][note 2]

text: NBC and its affiliates, such as KNBC, promoted the finale's broadcast for a few weeks up to the day of the original airing on the network's news programs, such as Dateline NBC and Today. KTLA, a Los Angeles station that reran Cheers in syndication, played a variation of the show's theme song, "Where Everybody Knows Your Name", during the week before the finale. Entertainment Tonight showed blooper reels of Cheers in the same week.[18] Ratings of Season 11 episodes (1992–1993) were growing in the weeks prior to the finale.[15]

text: Between April 1–4, 1993, the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press (now the Pew Research Center) surveyed 1,011 people by telephone. Sam Malone was voted a favorite by 26 % and had a 15 % chance of a spin-off. Answering a question as to who he should marry, 21 % voted Diane Chambers, 19 % voted Rebecca Howe, 48 % voted for Sam to remain single, and 12 % had no opinion on this matter. Woody Boyd was voted a favorite by 18 % and had 12 % chance of a spin-off, and Norm Peterson was voted by 14 % and had 10 % chance of a spin-off.[19][20][note 3]

text: Newspapers counted down to the Cheers finale in different ways. The Washington Post covered the show's background.[21] The Star Tribune published stories related to Cheers, including one about local residents playing trivia games that that paid tribute to the show and characters such as Cliff and Norm;[22] the future of the fictional Sam Malone was addressed.[23] The Deseret News asked its readers to send in their own fantasy finale endings before it was broadcast.[24]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical reviews[edit]

text:
"I don't think we ever entertained that idea of Sam and Diane going off together. It seemed like [we'd be] going backwards a little. I'm not sure if that big of a portion of our audience would have been happy with it[.] [T]here were people who loved Shelley, but a lot of people liked Rebecca better, or thought Diane was bad for Sam, and so on."[25]

Les Charles, GQ magazine

text: Reviews of this episode at the time of its initial broadcast were mixed. John J. O'Connor from The New York Times called the episode "overly long and uncharacteristically labored" and considered its length "a miscalculation." Nevertheless, O'Connor wrote, "Things didn't turn absolutely soppy, but nearly."[16][26] Tony Scott of Daily Variety praised the writing, yet he found the finale "overly long" and described the last 30 minutes as "limping."[27] John Carman of the San Francisco Chronicle "liked the finale" and "was choked up at the end"; nevertheless, he found Shelley Long's special guest performance "disappointing" – her "cute pills" were past "their expiration date." Ann Hodges of The Houston Chronicle "found the conclusion fitting" but was not sad about the series' cancellation.[28] One reader's letter in The Post-Standard pointed out the episode omitted mention of Coach Ernie Pantusso, one of original Cheers characters who died in 1985, and expressed disdain over this, even though the Geronimo picture was shown at the end to commemorate Coach.[29]

text: The reviews in later years were mostly positive. In 1998, A. J. Jacobs of Entertainment Weekly graded this finale a B+, calling it "a satisfying nightcap" and "sharply written by the [Charles brothers]", with its final moments "classy as a flute of chilled Cristal."[30] In 2006, Ron Geraci, author of the book The Bachelor Chronicles: A Dating Memoir, called it "raw and moving" and "significant."[31] In 2007, Dalton Ross of Entertainment Weekly called it one of his "Five Best (pre-Sopranos) Series Finales."[32] In 2007, Douglas Durden of The Richmond Times-Dispatch named it his fifth most favorite television finale of all-time.[33] In 2009, the A.V. Club ranked it No. 3 in "10 American TV Series with Satisfying Endings" in the book Inventory.[34] In 2010, Sharon Knolle of The Huffington Post was relieved to see the final onscreen romance between Sam and Diane end rather than conclude with their marriage.[35] In the same year, Oliver Miller of The Huffington Post was heartbroken by Sam and Diane's on-screen "absurd protracted double-gut-punch break-up" in the episode.[36] Claire Suddath from Time magazine called it one of top ten "anticipated" finales ever.[5] In 2011, the finale was ranked fifth on the TV Guide Network special, TV's Most Unforgettable Finales.[37] In 2014, IGN ranked it number six of the top ten Cheers episodes.[38]

text: Ratings[edit]

text: The episode aired on NBC on May 20, 1993, at 9:22 p.m. instead of 9:30 p.m., the regular time for Cheers, as the episode was scheduled to run 98-minutes.[note 4] The overall Nielsen rating was 45.5 (approximately 42.4 million households), 64 or 62 share,[3][39][40] and the number of American viewers was either 80 million[41] or 93 million.[3][39][42] The broadcast in 29 major markets resulted an overnight 46.7 Nielsen rating (22 million households) and 62 share.[43] In the Los Angeles area, the finale scored a 44.5 rating for (KNBC);[2] in the Minneapolis–St. Paul market (KARE), a 54.8 rating and 72 share;[44] in New York City (WNBC), a 45.6 rating;[45] in the Hartford–New Haven (WVIT) area, a 48 rating and 63 share;[46] and in Boston (WBZ-TV), the series' setting, a 54.1 rating.[47]

text: The retrospective program, Cheers: Last Call!, hosted by Bob Costas, paid tribute to 11 years of Cheers and aired at 9:00 p.m. before the 9:22 p.m. finale.[3][48] It received an overall 39.6 rating (36.9 million households); the Los Angeles rating was 40.0.[2]

text: The finale reran on Sunday, May 23, 1993, from 7:22 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. ET with a Nielsen rating of 10.0. Cheers: Last Call!, which ran from 7:00 p.m. to 7:22 p.m. ET had a 7.4 rating.[2][39] The finale reran again on Thursday, August 19, 1993, in a 90-minute format from 8:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and received a 9.4 rating.[4][49][50]

text: Accolades[edit]

text: At the 45th Primetime Emmy Awards (1993), Robert Bramwell won Outstanding Achievement in Editing for a Series (Multi-Camera Production).[51][52] Shelley Long lost the Outstanding Guest Actress in a Comedy Series to Tracey Ullman (Love and War).[52][53] Tom Berenger lost the Outstanding Guest Actor in a Comedy Series to David Clennon (Dream On).[52][54] James Burrows lost the Outstanding Individual Achievement in Directing in a Comedy Series to Betty Thomas (Dream On)[52][55]

text: Aftermath[edit]

text: Before and after the production of Cheers had ended, the cast had moved on to other stages in their careers. Shelley Long appeared on the CBS show Good Advice before this episode, and resumed her work there. Ted Danson appeared in Made in America, which opened in theatres soon after the episode aired. Kirstie Alley participated in the film Look Who's Talking Now.[56]

text: Woody Harrelson appeared in Indecent Proposal, with Demi Moore and Robert Redford already showing in theaters, and appeared in Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers. George Wendt appeared in an off-Broadway play. John Ratzenberger appeared in Fox's Locals. Rhea Perlman took "a break" from acting for a while. Kelsey Grammer soon reappeared as Frasier Crane in the spinoff Frasier, set in Seattle, as the host of a new radio show[56] with only occasional appearances of Lilith Sternin or their son Frederick during its 11-year run. However, Frasier would eventually return to Boston for a visit, along with his brother Niles and father Martin (played by David Hyde Pierce and John Mahoney, respectively).

text: Before the first airing of this series finale, more than five hundred people, including the cast of Cheers (except Shelley Long, Kirstie Alley, and Bebe Neuwirth)[57]) and politicians such as William M. Bulger and past State Governor William Weld, participated at an afternoon celebration on Beacon Street near the Bull & Finch Pub in Boston, to celebrate the series' ending.[57] After the episode aired, the remaining cast appeared live on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno in the Bull & Finch Pub. According to host Jay Leno, the cast was so intoxicated they were unaware that they were being interviewed live.[58]

text: In 1997, one copy of this episode's script was donated by George Wendt to the Handel and Haydn Society, a Boston music institution. It contained the autographs of eight cast members, including of Shelley Long, Woody Harrelson, and George Wendt. On February 15, 1997, it was stolen from the Boston Four Seasons Hotel. The high bid for it at the benefit auction was $1,000 before it was stolen. About one week later, the stolen script, in a manila envelope, was left at a church; the Society then retrieved it. In March 1997, the autographed copy of the episode's script was sold to the Bull and Finch Pub (now Cheers Beacon Hill) for $10,000.[59][60]

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ The episode, "The Guy Can't Help It", aired on May 13, 1993, one week before the series finale. However, the source does not mention the title of the "penultimate episode".[8]
Jump up ^ The March 5, 1993, edition of Reading Eagle reported that the budget of each 30-second commercial was estimated $600,000, according to NBC insiders. Later articles report, otherwise, that each was $650,000 estimate.
Jump up ^ The margin of error in the survey was ±3, according to sources.
Jump up ^ These are the times in the areas of Eastern and Pacific Time Zones. Of Central and Mountain, the finale aired at 8:22 p.m. instead of 8:30p.m., a regular time for Cheers.


document_title: Quorum

question_text: in order for senate or house to vote on a bill how many members must be present

text: Quorum

text: Number constituting a quorum[edit]

text: Each assembly determines the number of members that constitutes a quorum in its governing documents (such as in its constitution, charter, bylaws or standing orders). The quorum may also be set by law. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised states that the quorum set in an organization's bylaws "should approximate the largest number that can be depended on to attend any meeting except in very bad weather or other extremely unfavorable conditions."[2]

text: In the absence of such a provision, a quorum in an assembly whose membership can be determined is a majority of the entire membership.[2] In the meetings of a convention, unless provided otherwise, a quorum is a majority of registered delegates, even if some have departed. In a mass meeting or in an organization in which the membership cannot be accurately determined, the quorum consists of those who attend the meeting.[2]

text: In committees and boards, a quorum is a majority of the members of the board or committee unless provided otherwise. The board or committee cannot set its own quorum unless given such power.[4] In a committee of the whole or its variants, a quorum is the same as the assembly unless otherwise provided.

text: In online groups, a quorum has to be determined in a different manner since no one is actually "present". The rules establishing such groups would have to prescribe this determination.[5] An example is that a quorum in such groups could be established as "present" if enough members state that they are "present" at the designated meeting time.[6]

text: Determination of a quorum[edit]

text: The chair of the group has the responsibility to determine if a quorum is present.[7] In addition, any member can raise a point of order about an apparent absence of a quorum.[8] Because it is difficult to determine exactly when a quorum was lost, points of order relating to the absence of a quorum are "generally not permitted to affect prior action; but upon clear and convincing proof, such a point of order can be given effect retrospectively by a ruling of the presiding officer, subject to appeal."[7]

text: Limited actions in the absence of a quorum[edit]

text: When a quorum is not met, the assembly can only take limited procedural actions. These limited actions are to fix the time to which to adjourn, adjourn, recess, or take measures to obtain a quorum, such as a motion that absent members be contacted during a recess.[9]

text: Any other business that is conducted is not valid unless it is ratified at a later meeting where a quorum is present. However, there is no obligation to ratify such action and those responsible may be punished for their actions.[9]

text: Call of the house[edit]

text: In legislatures and other assemblies that have the legal power to compel the attendance of their members, the call of the house procedure may be used to obtain a quorum.[10] This procedure does not exist in ordinary societies, since voluntary associations have no coercive power.[10]

text: When a call of the house is ordered, the clerk calls the roll of members and then the names of absentees. Members who do not have an excused absence are arrested and brought in.[10] The arrested members may be charged a fee.[10]

text: Examples in United States Senate[edit]

text: In the United States Senate, the procedure was used in the early morning hours of February 25, 1988. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, then the Senate Majority Leader, moved a call of the house after the minority Republicans walked out in an attempt to deny the Senate a quorum after Senate aides began bringing cots into the Senate cloakrooms in preparation for an all-night session over campaign finance reform for congressional elections. Byrd's motion was approved 45-3 and arrest warrants were signed for all 46 Republicans. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Henry K. Giugni and his staff searched the Capitol's corridor and Senate office buildings for absent Senators, and after checking several empty offices, spotted Senator Steve Symms of Idaho, who fled down a hallway and escaped arrest. After a cleaning woman gave a tip that Senator Robert Packwood of Oregon was in his office, Giugni opened the door with a skeleton key. Packwood attempted to shove the door closed, but Giugni and two assistants pushed it open. Packwood was "carried feet-first into the Senate chamber by three plainclothes officers" and sustained bruised knuckles.[11]

text: Prior to 1988, the last time the procedure had been used was during a 1942 filibuster over civil rights legislation.[11] Southern Democrat senators had spent days filibustering legislation to end poll taxes used in the South to disenfranchise blacks and other low-income voters. Taking place just days after midterm elections had resulted in the loss of nine seats. Democratic Majority Leader Alben W. Barkley obtained an order on a Saturday session on November 14, 1942 directing Sergeant at Arms Chesley W. Jurney to round up the five Southern absentees to obtain a quorum. Jurney sent his Deputy Sergeant at Arms, J. Mark Trice, to the apartment of Democratic Senator Kenneth McKellar of Tennessee at the Mayflower Hotel. Then 73 years old and the third-most senior Senator, McKellar was later described by Republican Senator Bill Frist in his book on Tennessee senators as an "extraordinarily shrewd man of husky dimensions with a long memory and a short fuse." Trice called from the lobby, but McKellar refused to answer his phone, so the deputy sergeant at arms walked up to the apartment and convinced the senator's maid to let him in:[12]

text:
When Trice explained that McKellar was urgently needed back at the Capitol, the 73-year-old legislator agreed to accompany him. As they approached the Senate wing, McKellar suddenly realized what was up. An aide later recalled, "His face grew redder and redder. By the time the car reached the Senate entrance, McKellar shot out and barreled through the corridors to find the source of his summons."
Barkley got his quorum...[12]

text: Quorum-busting[edit]

text: The tactic of quorum-busting—causing a quorum to be prevented from meeting—has been used in legislative bodies by minorities seeking to block the adoption of some measure they oppose. This generally only happens where the quorum is a super-majority, as quorums of a majority or less of the membership mean that the support of a majority of members is always sufficient for the quorum (as well as for passage). Rules to discourage quorum-busting have been adopted by legislative bodies, such as the call of the house, outlined above.

text: Quorum-busting has been used for centuries. For instance, during his time in the state legislature, Abraham Lincoln leapt out of a first story window (the doors of the Capitol had been locked to prevent legislators from fleeing) in a failed attempt to prevent a quorum from being present.[13]

text: A recent prominent example of quorum-busting occurred during the 2003 Texas redistricting, in which the majority Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives sought to carry out a controversial mid-decade congressional redistricting bill which would have favored Republicans by displacing five Democratic U.S. Representatives from Texas (the Texas Five) from their districts. The House Democrats, certain of defeat if a quorum were present, took a plane to the neighboring state of Oklahoma to prevent a quorum from being present (and thus the passage of the bill). The group gained the nickname "the Killer Ds."

text: Similarly, the minority Democrats in the Texas Legislature's upper chamber, the Texas Senate, fled to New Mexico to prevent a quorum of the Senate to prevent a redistricting bill from being considered during a special session. The Texas Eleven stayed in New Mexico for 46 days before John Whitmire returned to Texas, creating a quorum. Because there was now no point in staying in New Mexico, the remaining ten members of the Texas Eleven returned to Texas to vote in opposition to the bill.

text: During the 2011 Wisconsin protests, fourteen Democratic members of the Wisconsin Senate went to Illinois in order to bust the necessary 20-member quorum. Democrats in the Indiana House of Representatives did the same in order to block another union-related bill, causing the legislative clock on the bill to expire. Traveling out of their state placed these legislators beyond the jurisdiction of state troopers who could compel them to return to the chamber.[14]

text: Disappearing quorum[edit]

text: The similar tactic of disappearing quorum (refusing to vote although physically present on the floor) was used by the minority to block votes in the United States House of Representatives until 1890. That year, Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed ordered that members who were present but abstaining would count in the quorum.[15][16][17]

text: By country[edit]

text: Australia[edit]

text: Section 22 and section 39 of the Constitution of Australia set the quorum for sittings of the House of Representatives and Senate at one-third of the whole number of MPs and senators, respectively, but Parliament is permitted to change the quorum for each House by ordinary legislation.

text: In the House of Representatives, the quorum was amended down to one-fifth by the House of Representatives (Quorum) Act 1989, which means the quorum of the current House of 150 MPs is 30 MPs.[18] In the senate, the quorum was amended down to one-quarter by the Senate (Quorum) Act 1991, so 19 senators is a quorum.[19] The quorum includes the occupant of the Chair and is not reduced by the death or resignation of a member or senator.

text: If at the beginning of a sitting the quorum is not met, the bells are rung for five minutes and a count is then taken; if the quorum is still not met the sitting is adjourned until the next sitting day. During the sitting, any MP or senator may draw attention to the lack of quorum in which the bells are rung for four minutes, and if a quorum is still not met the sitting is adjourned.

text: Although quorum-busting is virtually unheard of in Australia, it is not unknown for parties to deliberately use quorum counts as a disruptive tactic and there have been some suggestions to enact rules to restrict this practice; however, this is very difficult due to the explicit mention of a quorum in the constitution. It is considered disorderly to call attention to quorum when one exists and members or senators who do so can be punished.

text: Austria[edit]

text: In the National Council of Austria at least one third of the representatives must be present, so that they may decide on a simple law (participation quorum of 33.3%). At least half of the members must participate if a constitutional law should pass the parliament (participation quorum of 50% based on the total number of members). Over and above that, constitutional laws require the consent of at least two-thirds of the members present (quorum agreement of 66.6% based on the number of voting present).

text: Canada[edit]

text: In Canada, the Constitution Act, 1867 sets quorum for sittings of the House of Commons of Canada at 20 MPs. If a member calls for quorum to be counted and a first count shows there are fewer than 20 members, bells are rung to call in the members; if after 15 minutes there are still fewer than 20 members, the session is adjourned to the next sitting day; the members present sign a roll on the table of the house, and this list is included in the Journal of the House. There is no need for quorum when the attendance of the House is requested in the Senate of Canada, for example when Royal Assent is being given to bills.[20] The quorum of the Senate is 15.[21]

text: Provincial and territorial quorums[edit]

text:
Province/Territory
Quorum

Alberta
20[22]

British Columbia
10[23]

Manitoba
10[24]

New Brunswick
14[25]

Newfoundland and Labrador
15[26]

Northwest Territories
majority[27]

Nova Scotia
15[28]

Nunavut
majority[29]

Ontario
12[30]

Prince Edward Island
10[31]

Quebec
21[32]

Saskatchewan
15[33]

Yukon
majority[34]

text: Germany[edit]

text: In the German Bundestag at least half of the members (311 out of 622) must be present so that it is empowered to make resolutions.[35] It is however common that fewer members are present, because they can still make effective decisions as long as no parliamentary group or 5% of the members of the parliament are complaining about the lack of quorum. This is in rare cases used by opposition parties to delay votes.[36]

text: Hong Kong[edit]

text: Article 75 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong stipulates that the quorum required for the meetings of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (LegCo) as "not less than one half of its members". Between 1997 and 2012 the quorum was 30, and since 2012 it has been 35. Prior to 1997 transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong, the quorum was set at 20.

text: The quorum for the panels, committees and subcommittees is, nevertheless, one-third or three members, whichever the greater, as according to the Rules of Procedure. The three standing committees, namely, the Finance Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and Committee on Members' Interests, is exceptional that the quorums are 9, 3 and 3 respectively.

text: Quorum-busting was used at least twice since 1997. In 2005, when some pro-democracy members of the council paid a silent tribute to late leader of the People's Republic of China, Zhao Ziyang, against the Rules of Procedure, the president of the council suspended the meeting. When the meeting was recalled, pro-Beijing members refused to return to the chamber, forcing the meeting to be adjourned.

text: On 27 January 2010, when five pro-democracy members were intending to make their resignation speeches, pro-Beijing members of the council left the chamber as a sign of protest. One of the pro-Beijing members nevertheless stayed in the chamber to call for the quorum to be counted, effectively forcing the meeting to be adjourned. The resignation was intended as a de facto referendum across all five geographical constituencies of the territory, involving the entire electorate, which would not be officially recognised anyway. Most other factions, although against the move by these five Members, stayed in the chamber.

text: On 2 May 2012, when the LegCo was debating a law change to bar resigning legislators to participate in by-elections in 6 months, effectively discouraging any more "de facto" referenda, some of the five pro-democracy members who resigned constantly issued quorum calls, especially when they were making their resignation speeches intended for 2 years before. In the nine-hour meeting, 23 quorum calls were issued, taking up to 3 hours. When LegCo reconvened on 3 May, it was adjourned for lack of quorum amid a boycott by the pan-democrats. The pro-government members drew a timetable to ensure a quorum, but it failed to prevent another lack of quorum.

text: On 18 June 2015, when the LegCo was due to vote on a resolution to amend the provisions for the election of the territory's Chief Executive, pro-Beijing members left the chamber to force a quorum roll call to make sure that a sick member could be able to rush back to the chamber. However some of the members stayed behind, citing miscommunication, and the division proceeded with two members above the required quorum of 35. While the resolution was originally predicted to be narrowly defeated due to not able to get super-majority support votes, it turned out to be a landslide defeat.[37]

text: Quorum-busting and attempts to thwart it are also a common feature during the annual motion debate related to the 1989 Tiananmen massacre moved by pro-democracy Members. The quorum is called to be counted from time to time by the pan-democrats, in order to force the pro-Beijing camp to keep some members in the chamber.

text: India[edit]

text: Article 100 of the Constitution of India stipulates that at least 10% of total number of members of the House must be present to constitute the quorum to constitute a meeting of either House of Parliament. For example, if the House has total membership of 250, at least 25 members must be present for the House to proceed with its business.[38]

text: If at any time during a meeting of a House there is no quorum, the Chairman has to either adjourn the House or suspend it until there is a quorum.[38]

text: Ireland[edit]

text: According to the most recent standing orders, published in 2011, the Quorum for the Irish Parliament (The Oireachtas) for both the house and senate is 20 members.

text: The chamber of Dail Eireann is rarely full outside question time, with often just one government representative (often an ordinary member of parliament not a minister) present to answer opposition questions.

text: Turkey[edit]

text: According to article 96 of the Turkish Constitution, unless otherwise stipulated in the Constitution, the Turkish Grand National Assembly shall convene with at least, one-third of the total number of members (184 out of 550) and shall take decisions by an absolute majority of those present; however, the quorum for decisions can, under no circumstances, be less than a quarter plus one of the total number of members.

text: Before the constitutional referendum of 2007, there was a quorum of two-third required in the Turkish Parliament. The opposition parties used the quorum to deadlock the presidential election of 2007, making it impossible for the parliament to choose a president. As a result, the ruling AK party proposed a referendum to lower the quorum. Nearly seventy percent of the participants supported the constitutional changes.

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the House of Commons has a quorum of 40 MPs, including the Speaker, out of 650 members of the House. There is no need for a quorum to be present at all times. Commons debates could theoretically continue even if just one MP and the Speaker were present. However, if a division is called and fewer than 40 MPs are present, then a decision on the business being considered is postponed and the House moves on to consider the next item of business. The quorum for votes on legislation in the House of Lords is 30, but just three of the 753 peers, including the Lord Speaker, are required to be present for a debate to take place.[39]

text: Historically, the Quorum was a select group of the Justices of the Peace in each county in early modern Britain. In theory, they were men experienced in law, but many of the Quorum were appointed because of their status. Some legislation required the involvement of a member of the Quorum, (e.g., granting a licence to a badger). In practice, they increasingly were not qualified, as the proportion in the Quorum rose faster than proportion who were called to the bar or practising lawyers. By 1532, an average 45% of Justices of the Peace nationally were of the Quorum. In Somerset, the proportion rose from 52% in 1562 to 93% in 1636. By then, most of those not on the Quorum were new to the bench. Sometimes Justices of the Peace were removed from the Quorum as a disciplinary measure less drastic than removal from the bench.[40]

text: United Nations[edit]

text: The large deliberative bodies of the United Nations (the General Assembly and Economic and Social Council, as well as their subsidiary organs) generally require the attendance of one-third of the membership (currently 65 states in the General Assembly and 18 in ECOSOC) to conduct most business, but a majority of members (currently 97 states in the General Assembly and 28 states in ECOSOC) in order to take any substantive decisions.[41][42] The rules of the United Nations Security Council make no provisions for quorum, but nine votes are in all cases required to pass any substantive measure, effectively meaning that a meeting with fewer than nine members in attendance is pointless.[43]

text: United States[edit]

text: Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business..." Therefore, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate a quorum is a simple majority of their respective members. The only exception is that stated in the Twelfth Amendment, which provides that in cases in which no candidate for President of the United States receives a majority in the Electoral College, the election is decided by the House of Representatives, in which case "a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states," and in cases in which no candidate for Vice President of the United States has been elected, the election is decided by the Senate, in which case "a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators."

text: The Senate has the additional ordinary requirement in Rule VI of its Standing Rules that "A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn."