Amph After Harry Potter . . . what now?

After seeing how big a hit Twilight was at the box office (unlike Eragon - Paolini had the potential to rise even higher, but that was a flop), I just feel like seconding my own prediction about Meyer Like Harry Potter, the Twilight series (while it has plenty of critics) has turned into a fantasy series that people who don't usually read fantasy enjoy. A bunch of people on my floor (and tons of people all over campus) went to see it and have read it. And these are university kids, not pre-teens. Meyer hasn't hit as big as JKR, and since all the books are out might have hit her height, as JRK has, but I think it's reasonable that she is/was "what's next."

 

You write this as though University kids are different than any other large youth demographic, including pre-teens. They all still use ketchup as a condiment.

The border crossing fans of which you speak(non-typical sci/fantasy readers) are irrelivent. Gossip Girl will appeal to a large portion of its intended age range, thats what it is designed to do. The readers(far fewer than you think)and moviegoers of Twilight who are age appropriate are just following the will of the machine. My question of quality in a sci/fantasy sense is this: can a consistant amount of true genre fans get into the series, regardless of age, or is it like reading/watching Gossip Girl on vampire crack? Age specific books are just fine, probably like 100+ Hardy Boys books out there, but is that all that Twilight amounts too? A good fantasy tale should be good, not good when I was 15.

As far as selling points go..."A bunch of college kids are into it"... really?

 

Because I've seen a conception around here (the JC, not this board) that Twilight is for thirteen-year-old girls.

And adults use ketchup too

 

Twilight, though having not read the books or seen the movies does not seem to be in the same league as HP. When I was a kid having seen the OT I never thought there would be anything to be as great. Then, we had the PT and LOTR, and I thought, for sure, nothing will eclipse these movies. Even though the OT is still my personal favs. Then HP showed up. I drank the Kool-Aid. (willingly) I love the movies as much as the books. I think it will be a gooooood loooong while before we see the likes of these movie saga's again.

 

I don't think that SW and LOTR are in the same field . . . SW was movies, the novelizations came later and aren't mentioned much off of messageboards. LOTR was a classic in its day and still is today, but while the movies were recent, the books were published decades ago, so I'm personally not including it in the HP-like phenomenon.

 

Its tough being that one is a book that spawned movies, one a movie that spawned books, and one a book that spawned a movie franchise decades later.

Many of those Modern Myth scholars would disagree, seeing as they view SW as modern day Homer. Poem/Stage/Novel/Big Screen are very similar in the end. SW had a script first, and while it may not have sold a billion copies, it is similar, in that the movie version contains added/dropped lines, improv and what not, just like the movie versions of HP and LOTR did. Oh and similar in the $$$ part of the phenomenon too.

Ultimately the conveyance of a solid myth in any format I think is ultimately very comparable. In the sense of a true phenomenon, moneymaking or otherwise, they are all more similar to eachother than any other modern franchise out there, perhaps with some comic book exceptions.

This is a modern day vs. old school contrast as well, as far as many of the criteria go. I truly doubt HP will be historically relevent in the sense that Homer is today, more of a "wow that series made bank" type of phenomenon. I am sure lots of HP fans would disagree however.

 

Even without beung a fan, IMO it goes farther than "that made bank." It was one of the few SFF series that appealed to non-SFF fans, and even more than that, was a hit with adults and children. Record sales, movies that do really well. Few hit that.

 

I'd kind of disagree with that. Lord of the Rings exploded in popularity in the 1960s, just like Harry Potter did in it's time. Different time, different publishing and movie making environments, but the actual effect was pretty similar. Harry Potter was a kind of echo of the success of Lord of the Rings. Mind you, there were very different core fangroups involved.

 

Eh, then I'll give you that. But when compared to LOTR, things can be phenomenons but not classics (since LOTR is widely considered the first modern fantasy story). However, I still hold that Twilight is the sequel to such a phenomenon as LOTR and HP.

 

Harry potter was drenched in story... almost like lord of the rings.

To have another great series of movies we will haave to wait for a hole lot of inspiration. maybe years. which sucks cus people are getting dumber

 

I noticed that Naomi Novik hasn't really been mentioned. Her Temeraire series is very good and the idea seems to be unique. I think it should also appeal to a much wider audience than Twilight. And to make it even better Peter Jackson has bought the film rights. That suggests that the series has a lot of potential.

 

I haven't heard of her, but with him directing movies, she could get pretty popular.

 

Her books are about dragons in the Napoleonic Wars. I thought it was an interesting 'what if...' idea, though the main reason I started to read her books was because there was a quote from Peter, on the cover, recommending them.

 

They're reasonably entertaining what-ifs. No disagreements. But thus far, not good enough to shell out for a hardcover. I'll wait for paperback. That's not a criticism per say, just a statement that they're not going to set the world on fire. Really, nothing has filled the "gap" left by Harry Potter, and I imagine it'll be another generation or so before something does. The widely successful series like Potter or Lord of the Rings are the exception, rather than the rule.


And I still maintain that the Dresden Files are what every Harry Potter fan needs to pick up, so I'm a hypocrit.

 

I suppose you have a point Revan.
However, HP was only a 'reasonably entertaining' series and it became a global phenomenon. I find it quite disappointing that there are some books which are much better written and less black and white than HP that do not have the audience that they should because everyone is obsessed with a certain angry and bitter boy wizard. I'm not saying that HP shouldn't be read and enjoyed, its just a pity that other authors don't recieve the same sort of recognition and publication as Rowling. HP was also lucky in that the film came out so soon after the release of the first book. This undoubtedly made the series appeal to a wider audience.
I don't believe that it is not in the same league as LOTR, which is a masterpiece and possibly one of the best books ever written.

Also, its only been two years since Deathly Hallows was released. We don't know what great books might be waiting just around the corner.

 

Excellent comments here. After reading Harry Potter, I wasn't sure what would be available, but I love the Dresden Files.

I read all of Stephanie Meyer's books, and I preferred "The Host" over her Twilight Series. However, The Host needed some editing because there were some slow sections near the end that took away from the overall story.

The Dark Material series is also excellent but just too controversial for some families - not me though...

I have read the first book of Temeraire book and started the second book, but it is a "harder" read for me; I cannot explain why but it is like the Lord of the Rings books. I have tried many times to finish reading LOTR and even the Hobbit, but it is difficult for me.

 

Interworld by Neil Gaiman would be an awesome movie then people would read the book and then he could write more.

 

I've heard of several rather famous Neil Gaimon books, but that isn't one of them.

 

Perhaps there will be more books preluding events. Dumbledor was famous for destroying a bad dude... maybe his life could be a book.

 

I didn't think anything would take the place of Harry Potter for me until I fell in love with Vader and started reading the novels.

 

From Wikipedia:

After Harry Potter

Rowling has stated that she plans to continue writing.[80] In an interview with Stephen Fry in 2005, Rowling claimed that she would much prefer to write any subsequent books under a pseudonym; however she conceded to Jeremy Paxman in 2003 that if she did, the press would probably "find out in seconds."[81] In 2006, Rowling revealed that she had finished writing a few short stories and another children's book (a "political fairy story") about a monster, aimed at a younger audience than Harry Potter readers.[82]

She is not planning to write an eighth Harry Potter book, and has stated, "I can't say I'll never write another book about that world just because I think, what do I know, in ten years' time I might want to return to it but I think it's unlikely."[83] However, Rowling has said she will be writing an encyclopedia of Harry Potter's wizarding world consisting of various unpublished material and notes.[84] Any profits from such a book would be given to charity.[85] During a news conference at Hollywood's Kodak Theatre in 2007, Rowling, when asked how the encyclopedia was coming along, said, "It's not coming along, and I haven't started writing it. I never said it was the next thing I'd do."[86] As of the end of 2007, Rowling has said that the encyclopaedia could take up to ten years to complete, stating "There is no point in doing it unless it is amazing. The last thing I want to do is to rush ­something out".[60]

In July 2007, Rowling said that she wants to dedicate "lots" of her time to her family, but is currently "sort of writing two things", one for children and the other for adults.[87] She did not give any details about the two projects but did state that she was excited because the two book situation reminded her of writing the Philosopher's Stone, explaining how she was then writing two books until Harry took over.[88] She stated in October 2007 that her future work was unlikely to be in the fantasy genre, explaining, "I think probably I've done my fantasy ... it would be incredibly difficult to go out and create another world that didn't in some way overlap with Harry's or maybe borrow a little too much from Harry."[89] In November 2007, Rowling said that she was working on another book, a "half-finished book for children that I think will probably be the next thing I publish."[90] In March 2008, Rowling confirmed that her "political fairy tale" for children was nearing completion.[91]

In March 2008, Rowling revealed in interview that she had returned to writing in Edinburgh cafés, intent on composing a new novel for children. "I will continue writing for children because that's what I enjoy," she told The Daily Telegraph. "I am very good at finding a suitable café; I blend into the crowd and, of course, I don't sit in the middle of the bar staring all around me."[92]

 

I think Harry Potter will attract more and more children and adults too. He grows up and I hope he'll find himself in new problems and situations, may be in the new world. The author of books about Harry Potter willn't stop I hope. I wish her good luck and new series about Harry!!!We like him!

 

I wish more people would get into the Ice and Fire series.

I'm a late arrival to this thread. I've read the first book in the series, but am rather reluctant to continue until I know Martin is serious about finishing it.

In the mean time, after reading a few other books, I'm planning to read The Dark Tower, largely inspired by Harry Potter actually. Stephen King is Rowling's Biggest Fan (pun intended), and I couldn't help wondering how Harry Potter is anything like what King writes, and then it struck me: both write books about schoolteachers (The Shining, The Dead Zone), teenagers with supernatural powers (Carrie), and pubescent kids (The Body, It) dealing with adolescence, childhood friends, puberty, and bullies. And of course Dark Tower is his own seven-book epic.

This raises another question: J.J. Abrams is apparently planning to adapt The Dark Tower into a film, or series of films. Can this be done as a film? Would it be better to do it as a miniseries or TV series, like they're doing with A Song of Ice and Fire? And how will they deal with the connections to other King books that have (Hearts in Atlantic, Salem's Lot) or have not (Insomnia) been adapted as films? For example, would Anthony Hopkins and James Cromwell reprise the characters they have played before? And what kind of appeal will it have compared to Potter?

 

I have not been in this thread for a long time, but after re-reading Septimus Heap as I mentioned earlier in the thread is due to be made into a movie and the next book in the series is due out next year I believe.

Also during the discussion of Twilight I noticed that Vampire Academy has never been mentioned either, I have read both, and I probably enjoy VA more than Twilight, it just has more action in it, and is probably aimed at a slightly older audience.

 

Don't write off Harry Potter yet. I suspect a Harry Potter MMO is in the works and will be coming out in the next couple years.