Star Wars & Harry Potter (books/films) - A Discussion

[Diemtay]

A few questions I have...

1. Just how "big" was Star Wars when it first came out in the 70s/80s? I know it was a complete pop-culture phenom, but just how big?

2. Was the popularity of Star Wars (originals/prequels) of the same level of the popularity of , or more than, Harry Potter? I didn't grow up during Star Wars, but having witnessed the rise of Harry Potter books and movies, it was really something to behold.

3. Will the Harry Potter books/movies be seen as the Star Wars of our generation?

 

[ALP]

Only thing I can definitively answer is number 3 and the answer is yes. Each generation has that massive phenomenon that simply catches everyone. In the 70s/80s it was Star Wars and in the 90s/00s it was Harry Potter.

I certainly wasn't around for the original Star Wars movies but I know it was huge. I can't say if it was bigger but the one thing I know that Potter has over Star Wars is that it was a phenom in both cinema and literature while Star Wars was just a cinema thing. Harry Potter conquered two mediums.

 

[Rocketman]

I'd say Lord of the Rings is more comparable to Star Wars.

 

[Diemtay]

Star Wars was just a cinema thing. .

Don't forget the TOYS, books, video games, clothing, comics, etc, etc. SW has made billions more than HP has ever made. They have 30 years of the best marketing history.

 

[DarkKnight88]

There's no comparison really. Star Wars was revolutionary. Don't forget it was nominated for Best Picture. Its Box Office returns, no one had seen since the likes of Gone with the Wind. The special effects were mind blowing. People know the movie and characters even if they haven't seen the film.

Harry Potter is just like any other movie franchise today. The books did a lot for literature but the movies aren't anything revolutionary like Star Wars was.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Dear Posters, stop making Star Wars threads. Seriously... we already have one.

 

[roach]

anyway....

I was alive during the Star Wars explosion and it was bigger than Harry Potter. Not to take anything away from the HP franchise. My measurement for this is the people around me. Not fanbois but just regular people. When my grandmother knows who Han Solo is or Luke Skywalker...then I know its reaching people.

 

[chaseter]

I'd say Lord of the Rings is more comparable to Star Wars.

Not really. More people know who Harry Potter is than who Frodo Baggins is. LOTR is still pretty big but it's no where near Star Wars or Potter.

Star Wars is still king but Harry Potter is right behind.

 

[chaseter]

There's no comparison really. Star Wars was revolutionary. Don't forget it was nominated for Best Picture. Its Box Office returns, no one had seen since the likes of Gone with the Wind. The special effects were mind blowing. People know the movie and characters even if they haven't seen the film.

Harry Potter is just like any other movie franchise today. The books did a lot for literature but the movies aren't anything revolutionary like Star Wars was.

Avatar was revolutionary so does that mean that movie wise, Avatar is bigger than Star Wars? It made 2.75 billion dollars in theaters. It was nominated for Best Picture. The special effects were mind blowing.

You have to look at it from a franchise perspective, not just movie wise.

 

[roach]

well Avatar did create a form of depression...People were seeing shrinks because the world of Avatar wasnt real

 

[psylockolussus]

I prefer Harry Potter over Star Wars.

Star Wars is too geeky.

 

[roach]

I prefer Harry Potter over Star Wars.

Star Wars is too geeky.

really...im sure people view them as equally geeky

 

[Matt]

Not really. More people know who Harry Potter is than who Frodo Baggins is. LOTR is still pretty big but it's no where near Star Wars or Potter.

Star Wars is still king but Harry Potter is right behind.

Not to mention it can't really be the "Stars War of a generation," if it inspired Star Wars.

I'd say Lord of the Rings could be considered the Star Wars of Tolkein's generation but Potter is without a doubt this generation's Star Wars. Nothing else has had such an effect on pop culture (or culture in general) in the past 40 years.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Star Wars reinvented the way we look at movies. I perfer Star Wars overall. I respect Harry potter a lot, but Star Wars wins, IMO.

 

[Matt]

There's no comparison really. Star Wars was revolutionary. Don't forget it was nominated for Best Picture. Its Box Office returns, no one had seen since the likes of Gone with the Wind. The special effects were mind blowing. People know the movie and characters even if they haven't seen the film.

Harry Potter is just like any other movie franchise today. The books did a lot for literature but the movies aren't anything revolutionary like Star Wars was.

You're overlooking the cultural impact. Box office and effects are not the only thing that define Star Wars. Its mass cultural impact is what makes it a phenomenon. Harry Potter is equivilant to that. Yes, while a lot of movies have great effects and make a lot of money today, most movies do not get words form their lexicon added into the dictionary or spawn their own theme parks. Harry Potter's culutral impact is definitely on par with Star Wars.

 

[Matt]

Star Wars reinvented the way we look at movies. I perfer Star Wars overall. I respect Harry potter a lot, but Star Wars wins, IMO.

Harry Potter reinvented the way that a lot of young readers look at literature, many of whom would not be reading today if not for Potter.

 

[Zanham]

Star Wars introduced some new things to audiences everywhere. Harry Potter did not. Also, Harry Potter is still viewed by many as a children's movie even if it does not consider itself one.

 

[roach]

Star Wars reinvented the way we look at movies. I perfer Star Wars overall. I respect Harry potter a lot, but Star Wars wins, IMO.

Not only did i change how we look at movies it also changed how movies are made. No one had a separate FX house before ILM. No one thought of making toys and tshirts and books and things based on movies

 

[ALP]

Not only did i change how we look at movies it also changed how movies are made. No one had a separate FX house before ILM. No one thought of making toys and tshirts and books and things based on movies

Ever heard of Planet of the Apes or Wizard of Oz?

People act like Star Wars created cinema merchandise when it did not. It only amplified it. Planet of the Apes especially had a lot of merch like toys, games, shows, etc following the films in the 60s.

But anyway the biggest difference between Star Wars and Potter lies in what the primary source is. Potter changed literature and really knocked down the door for the YA genre. The films were more an after thought, and while fun, they haven't changed the way films are made. On the other hand Star Wars revolutionized cinema but has made no difference as far as literature.

 

[def28]

None of the Potter movies can touch The Empire Strikes BAck.

 

[roach]

This is why Star Wars will always be number one

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Ever heard of Planet of the Apes or Wizard of Oz?

People act like Star Wars created cinema merchandise when it did not. It only amplified it. Planet of the Apes especially had a lot of merch like toys, games, shows, etc following the films in the 60s.

Lucas got the merchandising rights to SW as part of his contract because the studio thought they were right next to worthless.
That should tell you exactly how 'amplified' SW made merchandising.
I bet a lot of kids woke up on Christmas day, opened their presents to a Planet of the Apes playset and thought 'wtf is this, where are the spider-man web-shooters I asked for?'
Whereas with Sw toys, the parents would be fighting over the last At-At in the shop because it was either that or a trip down to the bargain basement shop for a Planet of the Apes playset, and an abiding memory of a massive 'wtf' embedded in their child's memory.

I saw ESB in 1980, but did not really get into Sw at that point, I got a few of the non-humanoid action figures to use as superheroes when playing, such as Darth, C-3po and a couple of Hoth Stormtroopers. Part of the reason I didn't get into SW initially was because it was so popular, and I did not want to follow the crowd, I had my superhero comics and toys thank you very much. I thought it had to be a lot of overated crap, like most movies when the 1st movie was released.
Also, we did not have a video recorder, so i could not rent the movies, i enjoyed empire well enough, but was only about 6 when i saw it, and only saw it the once. But, when they showed the first Star Wars film on tv in 82, I got heavily into it, and started getting all the toys.
There was nothing like it, it was everywhere.

In comparison to Potter, it's different medium, but I don't imagine there are anywhere near as many kids at home running round the house with their dad's specs on, while riding the house mop, as there were kids using the house mop as a lightsabre, or y'know, playing with SW toys.
With Potter, I imagine for the most part, the kids read the books, and that is about it, they watch the movie dvds and maybe they buy a wand that makes some crazy magic sounds and get some enjoyment out of it for a day. But with SW if you were into it as a kid, it became a way of life. You had to get all the figures, all the ships, all the comics, it was like being hooked on death sticks.

 

[ALP]

This is why Star Wars will always be number one

Number one of what? Star Wars is number one in films while Harry Potter is number one in books. That's why it's a bit harder to gauge.

In comparison to Potter, it's different medium, but I don't imagine there are anywhere near as many kids at home running round the house with their dad's specs on, while riding the house mop, as there were kids using the house mop as a lightsabre, or y'know, playing with SW toys.
With Potter, I imagine for the most part, the kids read the books, and that is about it, they watch the movie dvds and maybe they buy a wand that makes some crazy magic sounds and get some enjoyment out of it for a day. But with SW if you were into it as a kid, it became a way of life. You had to get all the figures, all the ships, all the comics, it was like being hooked on death sticks.

See this proves you don't know much about Harry Potter or the crowds. Year after year millions of people went to midnight premieres to purchase the books. Thousands of people pack into massive arenas when JK Rowling does readings of her books and as stated before, there's an entire Potter theme park. In 10 years there have been more Harry Potter books sold than Lord of the Rings books sold in 50 years.

As for your first bit, yeah, SW changed the way studios thought of merchandise forever. But it was still not the first film to have merchandise as some people like to say, like when people claim it was the first 'epic' film.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

See this proves you don't know much about Harry Potter or the crowds. Year after year millions of people went to midnight premieres to purchase the books. Thousands of people pack into massive arenas when JK Rowling does readings of her books and as stated before, there's an entire Potter theme park. In 10 years there have been more Harry Potter books sold than Lord of the Rings books sold in 50 years.

Aye, actually I do, but you missed my point, my point was about how much the HP stuff actually becomes a part of the kid's life, because with SW when you were into it, it did become a way of life, it was SW every day. Whereas with such a thing as a book franchise, there is only so much spin off activities you can engage in, as you illustrated here.

I mean, how many HP fans own toys and play with them every day? Not many I guess, it's not exactly the greatest for toys is it, like SW.
and that was a large part of the SW phenomena, that is missing from HP, the kids being into the toys, it cannot be stressed enough, the toys made the films a massive part of millions of kid's childhoods, it took up all of your activity time, you went round to your pal's house and played SW, all your pals had the toys too, it really was a way of life for millions of kids for many years.

As for your first bit, yeah, SW changed the way studios thought of merchandise forever. But it was still not the first film to have merchandise as some people like to say, like when people claim it was the first 'epic' film.

I know a lot of folk round her like to overuse the word 'epic' as they find it amusing, but really you should be thinking about being accurate with your point, rather than trying to stick in a word that is just a joke.
It was large productions like the Cecille B De Mille films that were described as 'epic', Star Wars was described as being one of the films that ushered in the 'blockbuster' age of movies(along with Jaws), the word originating from the fact that there would be lines around the block queued up for the films.

 

[ALP]

When you put it that way I tend to agree. Star Wars is probably number one when it comes to toys and collections. Lucas gets flak but the man knows what he was doing.