Harry Potter and the Same Movie As The Last One

(NOTE: As a longtime reader and longtime lurker, I know how these forums operate, so I'm fully prepared to get flamed for this thread. However, you only live once, so what the hell -- I'll risk the wrath of Feraci.)

I don't understand the Harry Potter franchise. Not the books. Not the movies. Not the mania. None of it. I read The Sorcerer's Stone back when it was still fairly newish and thought, "Okay, this is cute, I wonder where Rowling goes with this," and then found that the answer to that question was that the story went absolutely nowhere...except to the top of the bestseller lists, as well as the Box Office charts.

Now, I know all the Pott-Heads will flame me and go on and on about how--story-wise--this happened and that happned and how I don't know what I'm talking about, and how I'm a "noob" and all those other witty comments reserved for some asshole like Warrior Angel, but I'm going to go forward anyway and present my Instant Harry Potter Sequel Formula. Ready? Here it goes:

1. Harry is living with his Muggle family. They're horribly abusive. Then something magical happens to one of them that is both humiliating and deserved.
2. Time to catch the train to Hogwarts! Friends reuinte!
3. We reach Hogwarts. Old rivalries flicker!
4. Surprise! There's a new Defense Against The Dark Arts instructor. Remember this once we get to the "twist" at the end...
5. Sneak out at night. Gather clues.
6. Meet the next day. Discuss clues.
7. Sneak out at night. Gather more clues.
8. Meet the next day. Discuss clues.
9. Harry feels angst about not knowing his parents.
10. Quidditch time!
11. Filler.
12. More filler.
13. The bad guy is revealed! And involved in this plot (typically) is none other than -- the new Defense Against the Dark Arts Instructor!
14. All of Harry's friends/companions are eliminated. Harry must go on alone!
15. Harry confronts Voldemort or one of Voldemort's guises...and beats him to a standstill using newly discovered power.
16. Yay! Griffindor wins!

Now, I realize there's a lot of generalization going on in there, and not every one of those points is always applicable, but they're USUALLY applicable. If nothing else, it can't be denied that each book/film follows the same structure and and never deviates from the Year At School timeline. We always end up where we began...which is to say, not much further along.

I don't get the obsession over this franchise, so I guess I'm just wondering what the consensus is? do the fans really feel there's a striking difference between each installment? And if not, do they care one way or another? Does this franchise deserve the attention and love that it receives?

Calling it an allegory doesn't change the fact that it's unimaginitive, repetetive writing. The first goal of entertainment is to entertain.

First of all, killing the Bond franchise would hardly upset me at all, given that you can only beat a dead horse for so long before it starts to look funny. However, with all due respect to Bond, there is certainly a formula in terms of set-up and execution, but each adventure is theoretically its own.

With Harry Potter, we're given seven episodes that are supposedly part of one large story...except that the story never goes anywhere, and it goes beyond a cookie-cutter set-up -- it becomes redundant.

I've read the first three books and seen all the films. And before it's toted out, I don't believe in the argument that reading the books will deepen my appreciation of things only touched on in the films, because the films are so heavy and overstuffed with fanboy shout-outs that these moments feel inconsequential to a casual viewer. Harry Potter 4, for instance, felt like it was about an hour too long, and no argument will convince me that the whole dance storyline did anything whatsoever for the narrative, regarless of how "coming of age"-y it might be. To me, it was dead weight.

Basically, it feels like a series of books and films aimed at twelve year-old girls, and not all that much different from Sweet Valley High outside of its fantasy trappings. I just don't understand the so-called "unhealthy obsesssions."

Flame on.

Well, it's a good thing you keep missing my points, or else I might have to not explain them. Again. That was sarcasm, by the way.

I do NOT want to be flamed...I just know how this board gets. "Gang up on the weak one," or something much like that. Personally, I don't give a squirt whether my opinion is iconoclastic -- it's my opinion. However, there is a tendency around here to beat up the guy with the opinion, particularly if he or she is new. Just saying.

And my point isn't that the books are aimed at kids...my point is that the fanbase is much older than that on the whole. Sure, many of the fans have grown up with the series, but every screening I've gone to has been populated by geeky adults who howl with laughter everytime Rupert Grint utilizes his Amazing Single Facial Expression or who get all worked up over which character is taking which other character to the Hogwarts Ball.

There's nothing wrong with "finding the child within" or any of that other new agey crap, because I still read comics, collect toys, and act like a giant geek. I just demand that my franchise actually have a forward momentum rather than chasing its tail in circles.

My opinion is that Rowling wrote a book, not expecting it to blow up, and when it did, she announced this huge Star Wars-ian enterprise that, like the Lucas machine, was all proclamation and no pre-planned direction.

My understanding was that it was a story in seven parts. guess I'm just wondering where the story went...?

Characterization is great, but come on -- this is about wizards and dragons. A little plot might juice it up a bit.

In a bizarre way, I think that was a compliment. If so, thank you.

Sorry, but to me, that sounds like an excuse to not tell a different story each time around.

"Well, being that lunch is at noon and recess is at 12:30, we can't exactly have them journey to another dimension, because then they'd be late for another game of Quidditch."

Oh, get over yourself. My point isn't that the series is formulaic, it's that IT'S THE SAME STORY EACH TIME.

I'm not here to defend Star Wars or Bond, but they at least provide a little variation.

Call it whatever you'd like.

I read the first three books.

Saw all the films.

Can't understand what made one different from the last.

Ah, here it is. I was waiting for it. I've now officially been labelled a troll because I pissed off a Pott-Head. Now my day has been completed.

I am SO FUCKING SORRY I missed out on the bitch session back in 1998. I am SO FUCKING SORRY that I decided, three books in, that the increasing weight of each tome was inversely proportionate to the development of actual story and decided to--I don't know--READ BOOKS I LIKE. And I'm SO FUCKING SORRY that I haven't seen the fifth film yet, seeing as it kind of hasn't been released yet.

Now, go have a good lurk.

You just don't get it, do you?

Big deal if it picks up after Book Three! Are you trying to defend the complete and total similarity of the first three books simply because it "gets good" in the fourth? That's the most apologetic thing I've ever heard.

And I saw the fourth film. I'm still waiting to see at what point things get "darker" and "different" and all those terms I keep hearing bandied about.

Okay. I concede. I haven't read the fourth, fifth, or six books. I saw the fourth film, so I feel educated enough to speak for its plot.

If we ignore five and six, and concentrate solely on the first four, I want someone to explain (in a way that isn't a bitch-fit) what makes the long slog toward parts five and six worth it? What's to differentiate between those stories? Isn't that an awfully long haul to get to the meat of the story? It's like sitting through Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones to get to Revenge of the Sith, where "things get dark and complicated."

Just trying to start a discussion. Never claimed to have the Holy Grail here, folks.

Now let's all take a nap on our Jar-Jar blankets and wake up better people.

First of all, thanks for responding in a manner that didn't suggest your panties were wedged all the way up your asshole. It's appreciated.

I don't think I'm the only one to feel this way about the series. I'm not alone (though I'm decidedly alone here in this thread). I'm just trying to--gasp--have a discussion and maybe even learn something that I'm missing.

And for the record, on a side track, I have to disagree with you about the Hammer films. They DID change the genre, in that they made blood, tits, and violence much more commerical not only in film, but specifically in horror. They also moved horror into a more lavish, color-oriented sphere. But we can agree to disagree.

I tend to feel that Books one and two start the same way, end the same way, and have nearly the exact same incidents in between with only minor varioation. If anything, Chamber of Secrets feels like a remake of the Sorcerer's Stone in many ways (book OR film).

Agreed. While I haven't read book 5, I agree that what has seemed so frustrating for me is that the first book seems to set up this epic sort of story about a boy growing into a man and facing the ultimate evil the world has ever seen. Everyone who digs this series describes it as just that, but by book three and film four I was sitting there feeling like I was watching the Star Wars prequels -- all filler, no killer.

Blueharvester sums it up for me (though I realize he/she probably disagrees about my prequel asessment). I felt that this could have/should have been epic, but chose instead to be Freckle Juice with magic wands.

Maybe the issue I have isn't what I want them to be, but rather what everyone is saying they are.

People seem to see these as epic like Lord of the Rings, and I just don't see it. I see repetition.