Most Comparable to Wizarding World?

[wizards8507]

I would argue that your definition of "literary classic" may not be copacetic with mine, or the general public's. I believe that the Harry Potter heptalogy is in fact a classic. It has inspired the highest grossing franchise in film history, it is the best selling book series in history, it has been immortalized in the real world with WWoHP, and it has inspired generations of children to read. And the future is bright. I am 28, and I have an unopened box set just waiting on my future children, and I suspect I am not the only one.

It doesn't bother you that everything comes from somewhere else? The entire series is derivative. If your children are going to read seven books, wouldn't you rather have them read The Canterbury Tales, Hamlet, Pride and Prejudice, The Lord of the Rings, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Animal Farm, and The Bible (if only for literary purposes). I wonder how many people have THOSE books set aside for their future children.

Within Tolkien alone, we see the following:

Dementor = Nazgul
Aragog = Shelob/Ungoliant
Whomping Willow = Old Man Willow
Wormtongue = Wormtail
"The Dark Lord"
Entire concept of a horcrux = The One Ring
Dumbledore = Gandalf
Harry's 11th birthday = Bilbo's 111th birthday

And HP pulls from tons of other sources, as well. There's nothing, in the entire series, that Rowling came up with herself.

 

[SleepingMonk]

It doesn't bother you that everything comes from somewhere else? .

Welcome to the world.

You can do the same thing with the bible itself.

Creation story, trinity, apocalypse, redemption, etc....all common themes long before christianity.

 

[xdan0920]

It doesn't bother you that everything comes from somewhere else? The entire series is derivative. If your children are going to read seven books, wouldn't you rather have them read The Canterbury Tales, Hamlet, Pride and Prejudice, The Lord of the Rings, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Animal Farm, and The Bible (if only for literary purposes). I wonder how many people have THOSE books set aside for their future children.

Within Tolkien alone, we see the following:

Dementor = Nazgul
Aragog = Shelob/Ungoliant
Whomping Willow = Old Man Willow
Wormtongue = Wormtail
"The Dark Lord"
Entire concept of a horcrux = The One Ring
Dumbledore = Gandalf
Harry's 11th birthday = Bilbo's 111th birthday

And HP pulls from tons of other sources, as well. There's nothing, in the entire series, that Rowling came up with herself.

In short, No.

But since this is a forum, I'll elaborate a bit. As sleepingmonk said above me, this form of logic can be applied to almost any creative property. I do not have the time nor the inclination to construct a list such as yourself, but I think most people would agree with my assessment. Let me just make one quick example. DisneyLand. Walt himself borrowed heavily from different pre existing parks. Does that make the accomplishment of DL any less creative? classic? wonderful? No, of course not. And the same goes for Rowling and Potter. She has constructed a world and characters that have become timeless.

As far as those other books, they will be in my library too. But I doubt they will have the same impact as the Potter novels.

 

[draybook]

Pools like thoughts are better if they are deeper.

What is there to delve in to? I've even read many a thread talking about how they've turned Main Street into Walmart by taking out stuff like the B&W cinema and putting in shops.

Thus Main Street would be better if it had more attractions/shows instead of shopping.

 

[Prototype82]

It doesn't bother you that everything comes from somewhere else? The entire series is derivative. If your children are going to read seven books, wouldn't you rather have them read The Canterbury Tales, Hamlet, Pride and Prejudice, The Lord of the Rings, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Animal Farm, and The Bible (if only for literary purposes). I wonder how many people have THOSE books set aside for their future children.

Within Tolkien alone, we see the following:

Dementor = Nazgul
Aragog = Shelob/Ungoliant
Whomping Willow = Old Man Willow
Wormtongue = Wormtail
"The Dark Lord"
Entire concept of a horcrux = The One Ring
Dumbledore = Gandalf
Harry's 11th birthday = Bilbo's 111th birthday

And HP pulls from tons of other sources, as well. There's nothing, in the entire series, that Rowling came up with herself.

I didn't realize Gandalf was the headmaster of a wizard school in the United Kingdom. I also didn't realize that Nazgul could suck the soul out of a living body. What isn't derivative? You act like C.S. Lewis isn't. Aslan is JESUS for goodness sake!

 

[Prototype82]

And HP pulls from tons of other sources, as well. There's nothing, in the entire series, that Rowling came up with herself.

All C.S. Lewis does is pull from other sources. He utilizes ever single mythological creature ever created and he bases everything bluntly off of the Bible... You statement is false, but of course she received inspiration from other works. Every author does. Get over it.

 

[yankspy]

From the O.E.D.
Classic-judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind…

Sorry, It does not qualify. It may one day, but it has to stand the test of time to get that classification.

For the record, I love the themeing involved in Potterland. It is great that Uni built something on Par with WDW. Healthy competition only means better attractions and lands for us.

 

[Prototype82]

From the O.E.D.
Classic-judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind…

Sorry, It does not qualify. It may one day, but it has to stand the test of time to get that classification.

For the record, I love the themeing involved in Potterland. It is great that Uni built something on Par with WDW. Healthy competition only means better attractions and lands for us.

That's why I said "destined classic".

 

[Rinx]

The thing is with WWoHP, all the buildings are not original. They are pretty much duplicates of the sets they used in the movies, and I believe the set designers also helped in WWoHP. So they just copied what was on-screen. Disney is much much more original. Think of all the research that was required and done for Everest, and the trips imagineers took to accurately portray the Himalayas and buy all that authentic stuff.

 

[draybook]

The thing is with WWoHP, all the buildings are not original. They are pretty much duplicates of the sets they used in the movies, and I believe the set designers also helped in WWoHP. So they just copied what was on-screen. Disney is much much more original. Think of all the research that was required and done for Everest, and the trips imagineers took to accurately portray the Himalayas and buy all that authentic stuff.

While true, aren't the replicas of World symbols in WS and the FLE examples of how Disney can replicate stuff too?

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Another thread of bollocks with the same old clichés. However it does give the usual suspects the chance to express their brand loyalty.

The rest of us are free to enjoy the difference.


Bag of baws.

 

[jakeman]

Another thread of bollocks with the same old clichés. However it does give the usual suspects the chance to express their brand loyalty.

The rest of us are free to enjoy the difference.


Bag of baws.

Now, now Pumbas. This one isn't so bad.

At least no one has suggested that Potterland has the ability to forgive you of sin yet.

 

[captainkidd]

I think just about any part of WDW is better than WWOHP. I think the whole Potter thing at Universal is overrated and overhyped. And I'm a fan of Universal.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

the ability to forgive you of sin yet.

It would have to be a lot bigger to allow that. :goodnevil

 

[wizards8507]

All C.S. Lewis does is pull from other sources. He utilizes ever single mythological creature ever created and he bases everything bluntly off of the Bible... You statement is false, but of course she received inspiration from other works. Every author does. Get over it.

C.S. Lewis was writing an allegory. His plot was supposed to be entirely symbolism. He was trying to tell the story of Jesus in a way that kids and others would enjoy reading. He wasn't just trying to sell books. The thing that really bothers me about Rowling is that she claims that any similarities between her and Tolkien are "superficial". She said, and I quote:

Q: I was wondering how much Tolkien inspired and influenced your writing?

Rowling: Hard to say. I didn't read The Hobbit until after the first Harry book was written, though I read Lord of the Rings when I was nineteen. I think, setting aside the obvious fact that we both use myth and legend, that the similarities are fairly superficial. Tolkien created a whole new mythology, which I would never claim to have done. On the other hand, I think I have better jokes.

 

[Edeyore]

I honestly feel that they could have done even better with Harry Potter. The theming of Hogsmeade is great. The main ride is really really impressive. But why short change other items. The remaining attractions are roller coasters. Two of them just renamed and given a new entrance and the other having about the same excitement level of the old Barnstormer. Like I said, some of what they did is great, but they really cut some corners and the corners cut are kind of obvious. When the expansion is done try comparing the Snow White roller coaster to Flight of the Hippogriff. You will find it won't be much of a comparision.

 

[Edeyore]

It doesn't bother you that everything comes from somewhere else? The entire series is derivative. If your children are going to read seven books, wouldn't you rather have them read The Canterbury Tales, Hamlet, Pride and Prejudice, The Lord of the Rings, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Animal Farm, and The Bible (if only for literary purposes). I wonder how many people have THOSE books set aside for their future children.

Within Tolkien alone, we see the following:

Dementor = Nazgul
Aragog = Shelob/Ungoliant
Whomping Willow = Old Man Willow
Wormtongue = Wormtail
"The Dark Lord"
Entire concept of a horcrux = The One Ring
Dumbledore = Gandalf
Harry's 11th birthday = Bilbo's 111th birthday

And HP pulls from tons of other sources, as well. There's nothing, in the entire series, that Rowling came up with herself.

I guess this just proves it isn't always the ingredients you use, but how you mix them together, and what they produce that really counts.

 

[Edeyore]

Another thread of bollocks with the same old clichés. However it does give the usual suspects the chance to express their brand loyalty.

The rest of us are free to enjoy the difference.


Bag of baws.

Would you please speak English? What? That is English. Oh, okay never mind.

 

[jakeman]

It would have to be a lot bigger to allow that. :goodnevil

Or at least a higher admission price...

 

[AndyMagic]

C.S. Lewis was writing an allegory. His plot was supposed to be entirely symbolism. He was trying to tell the story of Jesus in a way that kids and others would enjoy reading. He wasn't just trying to sell books. The thing that really bothers me about Rowling is that she claims that any similarities between her and Tolkien are "superficial". She said, and I quote:

Q: I was wondering how much Tolkien inspired and influenced your writing?

Rowling: Hard to say. I didn't read The Hobbit until after the first Harry book was written, though I read Lord of the Rings when I was nineteen. I think, setting aside the obvious fact that we both use myth and legend, that the similarities are fairly superficial. Tolkien created a whole new mythology, which I would never claim to have done. On the other hand, I think I have better jokes.

The argument that Lewis was writing an allegory isn't an argument at all. The fact remains that there is nothing "original" in his books either. How anyone could claim Harry Potter won't become a classic while at the same time talk about how brilliant Lewis' modest novellas are makes me gag. I'm fine with putting Tolkien on a pedestal but the Narnia books read like the Berenstain Bears. It's fluff and for the life of me can't imagine why it would amuse anyone over the age of 10. Harry Potter enthralls 60 year-olds.