How Star Wars, Star Trek, The Matrix, and Harry Potter are Actually the Same Movie 

NO. Actually they are all very different. Star Wars and Harry Potter have similarities but there are many differences as well. The Matrix and Star Trek??? I dont see hardly any similarities except one guy in the center of a problem. So no they are not all the same movie. Besides all these movies are still better than TWISHIT.

Did you click the link?

That's actually the bare-bones, basic plot structure of practically every story in existence: Artemis Fowl, the Legend of Drizzt, Vampire Academy (except Rose being unhappy in the beginning), Cirque Du Freak, Animorphs, Everworld, The Bartimaeus Trilogy, Twilight, The Den of Shadows, The Keish'ra volumes, The Underland Chronicles, and millions upon millions of others. Kinda tends to happen when people have been writing for centuries.

Shame JKR fell into the trap.

link

There are only 36 plots for stories that are possible. Any story that makes any sense at all follows one of the 36 plots. That means perfect little Smeyer has twins to her books as well.
It's what the author does with their plot that counts. JK used beautiful writing, a creative spin on her plot, and well-developed characters to tell her story, which is what makes it unique and wonderful. Smeyer's story has weak writing, undeveloped characters, and no creative spin on a basic plot, which makes her story not very good.

So comparing HP to other legendary works is not really proving a point.

^Exactly. It's not the basic plot line that makes a story interesting or unique - it's the sub-plots, characters, rising action, climax, resolution, and actual writing styles that make stories unique. The basic plot line of Star Wars and HP may be the same, but that's it. None of the things I've listed above are similar to HP.

JK is a human, just like every other writer on the face of the planet. She "fell into" the same "trap" as every other human being: limitations. There are only so many basic plots that can be used.

Blending some more plots would have helped

She had enough sub-plots and character development going on. She didn't need any more plots to make it interesting, or climatic or anything like that. Her basic plot was perfectly fine for HP, just like that basic plot is perfectly fine for every other story that uses it.

^^I'm assuming that you mean Smeyer could use some more subplots, since JK has an excellent amount in hers that fit in well and make the story interesting and complex.

no, sorry

Oh. Then sorry that I disproved your statement. Didn't mean to disappoint you.

I'll manage

if there all the same then explain why i only like Harry Potter and not the other three......

Because that's just who you are

Or, because the sub-plots, story-line, characters, character development, writing style, battles, climaxes, twists, descriptions and surprises in Harry Potter were so different from Star Wars, The Matrix and Stark Trek that Izzy, like myself, found Harry Potter a better read (and watch).

I agree they have the same basic plot-line.
But lots of stories have similar plot-lines to others. The way the plot-lines have been detailed makes them very different stories.

Yeah, okay, bri-marie

Okay, youknowit.

1. Like many others have said, the things listed in the link are just the bare bones- a skeleton of a story, and whilst they may be similair, they do not matter as much as the development, subplots and characters.

2. Whilst reading the link, there were are few things I found to be...manipulated. Firstly, it seems to be under the impression that Hagrid is Harry's mentor, which is not true. Dumbledore is Harry's mentor, so two of the points are now rendered mute. :)

3. Additionally on the point of inaccuaracies, it says Luke is 'special' because of circumstances surrounding his birth. Not true- Luke is special because he is, seemingly, the last Jedi. Of course, we all know about 'the other'. His father, Anakin, is the 'Chosen One', and even then it's not circumstances surrounding his birth, it was the high Midichlorian count in his blood. The author doesn't seem to know their Star Wars facts!

4. Also, as another Star Wars related point, Han doesn't 'challenge' Luke's abilities. Han just takes an extremely cynical outlook on everything. He's a rogue- it's what he does. I don't think Draco and Han's actions can be compared.

5. Sorry to bring up Star Wars again, but the article also says 'things go relatively well until Alderaan is destroyed'. I beg to differ. Alderaan is destroyed very shortly after Luke enters the Death Star (mk.1). The pacing is entirely different, and Obi-wan is killed, so that's not 'going well'. I also don't think Voldemort returning and Alderaan being destroyed are the same thing. For one thing, they are completely different in terms of rlevance to the plot. The destruction of Alderaan is something done to show the power of the Empire, whereas Voldie's return is perhaps the most important part of the books.

6. Luke doesn't destroy Vader. Luke saves Vader and Vader destroys the Emporer (who, by the way, is Luke's actual nemesis, not Vader). Harry doesn't destroy Voldemort's body.

7. Harry has never claimed to be a 'great wizard', nor has Luke ever claimed to be exceptionally powerful with the force. And I've read a lot of Extended Universe Star Wars, so trust me. :)

God...I didn't even know I was that nerdy! XD

But siriusly, a lot of things in this article have been stretched or manipulated. I don't think it's to be trusted.

Rendered moot, not mute.

Sorry. :)

Anything else?

Nah, it all makes sense

Thank you. :)

Harry and Luke similarites and Differences SPELLED OUT!

S:Chosen Ones
D: One is a wizard, the other a Jedi
S:both grew up with aunt and uncle
D:one set loved their nephew, the other didnt
S:both have two best friends who fall in love with eachother
D:Luke must defeat his father Darth Vader who we all know redeems himself, Harry has to defeat Voldy who is an ass till the end and obviously not his father.
S:both have to fight off evil legions aka: Death Eaters and StormTroopers
D:Harry is a FULL orphan. Luke and Leia still have a father.
S: Dumbledore is to Yoda as Obi-Wan is to Sirius. Both have a couple father mentors
D: Both may or may not have had feelings for Hermione and Leia, but Harry admitted to loving Hermy like a sister and Leia IS Lukes sister.

Getting the point. Dont feel bad. I amaze myself how nerdy I am. Disney, Star Wars, Harry Potter, movies in general I really cant be stumped to often.

a lot of your differences are similarities.

MissKnowItAll, Supersnuffles13 and bri-marie have already pointed it out excellently. But I shall say it again: Some themes in popular culture gets reused alot of times due to the ease of the common human to identify themselves with it. Good versus Evil is a very good example. If we had to invent a new theme for every new book that pops up, we would end up in a very tedious and confusing situation. By the way, the "Van Helsing" movie, "Valkyrie" movie and the "Hunger Games" series all have the central theme in common. By your logic, which I perceive as an under the table accusation of plagiarism, the two movies and the book series I gave as examples plagiarised each other.

youknowit: You don't actually read the things people say, do you? If you did, you might have noticed something vital: some of those reasons had letters in front of them. Those letters (S and D) actually stand for something. The reasons that had an S in front of them were things that were similar, and the reasons that had a D in front of them were things that were different.

wtf? Yes i read it. some of those differences are more like similarities

How?

Care to explain why?

MissKnowItAll: Epic Star Wars knowledge. Obi-Wan is pleased with you. :)

One is a wizard, the other a Jedi
Both are something different because of their genetics.
Defeat Vader/Defeat Voldy
common theme being defeat
Loving Hermione like a sister/loving Leia because she is a sister
common theme being sisterly love

she listed how these similarities slightly differ. i'm surprised she didn't say One was writin by JKR, the other by George Lucas, or One is named Harry, the other Luke

@Loopy: I live only for his approval. XD

@Youknowit:

1. The first similarity is plausible. However, I would like to point out that it isn't genetics, in Harry's case it's magic, and in Luke's it is his high midichlorian count.
However, the fact that they are both different/special isn't bad. Every hero needs to be set apart in some way. That is just how storytelling works.

2. Luke doesn't defeat Vader- he saves Vader. Vader destroys the emporer. Siriusly, how many times does this need to made clear? At any rate, in storytelling, that's how it works. You can't use that against something.

3. Sisterly love is a similarity, but still not enough to be classed as glaring plagarism.

loving someone like a sister and someone actually being your sister are very different
trust me
i have a friend who is like a sister
and i have a sister
there are alot of differences

Both are something different because of their genetics.
And that means what? The stories are similar because the characters have different genetics than humans? Well, then Twilight's similar as well to Star Wars and Star Trek because, after all, the shape-shifters and vampires are different because of their genetics.
It was never stated that genetics is the reason for magical power and it doesn't even explain it. How can a person with no magical person in their family carry the magic gene?

Common theme being defeat
Along with every book series ever written. The characters have to defeat something. That's was causes the climax.

Common theme being sisterly love
That's the only one that should have been a similarity, but was listed as a difference.

the same way a person with brown eyes can carry the gene for blue. that's how genetics work.

I didn't say these three things make it plagarism. i said they are similarities and not differences. you can add them to miss. Pers'es list of similarities

@youknowit: "the same way a person with brown eyes can carry the gene for blue. that's how genetics work."

Normally, that would make sense, but it is not genes that make wizards magical, nor is it genes that make some people Jedi and others not.

Exactly:carry the gene. The gene is there. With magic, it's not. Lily Potter had no magical beings in her family and, yet, she had magic.

Nobody said anything about plagiarism. You said it similarities, but we've said (and proven) that they are not.

@bri-marie: I said plagarism, but more because I was a little annoyed.

Ah. Well, the rest of my point still stands.

missknowitall said plegerism

maybe its not exactly genetics, but theres something scientific that makes them what they are, right?

nobody disproved sisterly love as being a similarity.

Yep. Some good points in there.

@youknowit: One word magic. Another two words: midichlorian count.

midichlorian is a microscopic life form. sounds scientific.

what makes them magic? what gives them the ability? are there genes magically alteres, or it that just a plot hole?

No one knows. No one's ever thought (or cared enough) to ask JK how/why they have magic. Maybe it is a scientific reason, maybe it is a plot-hole. And until someone actually cares enough to write her and ask, we'll never know what causes it.

And I said that the sisterly love should have been a similarity.

@youknowit: Magic is magic- there's your explanation.

Mididchlorian's aren't genes, though, are they. They are microscopic life forms living in your blood. Some have them, some don't. Like some people have blonde hair, some don't.

Blone hair is determined by genes.

I know. But that is not the point I was making. I was simply pointing out variation. Some are, some aren't.


*some mothers do 'ave 'em'* basically sums up what I'm saying. A midichlorian count is random. What don't you understand.

The fact that random is a concept that doesn't exist. everything is determined by something, always. JaKe decided to ignore science and make it all random?

you could look at every single movie ever made by hollywood and find another with the same basic plotline, this topic is rather silly

JaKe? Who's JaKe?

You need to stop applying the genetics of humans to the genetics of aliens. Because jedis do not equal humans.

Jedis have a high midichlorian count. The others in their 'universe' don't.

JaKe decided to ignore science and make it all random?
Did we say that? No. I told you: nobody cared enough about where Harry got his magic from to ask JK. It wasn't important (and nobody cared - we were much more interested in the actual story and characters to really bother with such a trivial piece of information) so she didn't put it in the books. It's not that there isn't a reason - it's that we don't know what the reason is. Nor does it even really matter - Harry didn't get his magic from a high midichlorian count like in Star Wars.

humans birth aliens?
humans birth wizards?
Something in their genes make them aliens, right?
Something in their genes make them wizards, right?

JaKe is JKR

at least in Twilight, the venom alters their genes. it makes sense, scientifically.

since fiction has no place in science it makes no scientific sense at all

It makes sense that the venom alters their genes, but it doesn't make sense that the altered genes give them "superpowers." In the real world, altered genes give you defects.

fiction novels are not supposed to make scientific sense unless about a scientific subject matter, since the dna of wizards/witches is never discussed in hp it has no place in this arguement

^ Basically what I was going to say.

The characters in Star Wars are technically aliens. Not all aliens have bug-eyes and huge heads, you know.

Something in their genes makes them aliens (we can only assume) but the part that makes them wizards isn't in their genes.

Not all defects are bad. Ever heard of idiot savants? notice how smart they are? Kids born with strong muscles?

technically the thing that makes them aliens may not be considered a defect simply a character personalisation thread of dna, since neither jedi's or vampires or even wizards (good ones, i have seen the magic fair ones) exist the point is moot, please lets move on

How does the venom alter their genes?

Wizards and vampires don't exist, so this should not be discussed? if that's the logic you use, Twilight and Harry Potter should have never been written because vampires and wizards don't exist. how edward got bella pregnant shouldn't matter because vampires don't exist. how Harry defetaed voldy shouldnt matter because they don't really exist

How does the venom alter their genes?

I actually agree partially with Jodarchy. Since these are works of fiction, set in their own worlds with their own laws etc, surely any explanation offered here cannot be satisfactory?

ah now i see why people don't like you lol, your arguements have no merit, you argue things that frankly arent even valid points ah my time has been wasted here i fear lol

snake venom contains complex chemicals that appear to be designed for purposes far removed from fruit-eating. One of these chemicals is highly specific in its attack on the central nervous system to arrest breathing; another specifically blocks the clotting mechanism so that the prey bleeds to death internally
hope that explains a little missknowitall lol

More than anything he's said...

Both stories take place on planet Earth. they should abide by common Earth laws

actually hp takes place in the wizarding world which is kept seperate from the muggle part to keep muggles safe (if you had read the books you might know that) it has its own laws plus there are common earth laws but each country has its own laws as well, technically since seperate the wizarding world can legitimatley have its own laws.

Star Wars takes place in 'A galaxy far,far away'.

as does star trek lol coincedence or not lol your arguement would say not lol

I thought we were ignoring him. -__-

I tried.

we were then his saying vampires venom spreading and altering genes was scientific fact and as a science major i could ignore no longer lol

Ergh. -__-

but i will try again just for you lol

The wizarding world takes place on Earth. (i know this because i read the books).

according to people here, wizards are still humams, their bodies should still behave like human bodies

I protest against this farce of forcing science on a non science fiction novel series.
But since we are appearing so arrogant as to stuff science down in a completely wrong location (by the way youknowit101, demonstrate by empirical evidence the existence of a hyperdrive, since hyperdrives apparently violate the laws on the speed of light, once you have done so we can talk. Otherwise you deny that while the natural laws is evidently true to one fictional being, it is apparently not for another being). While youknowit101 struggles to provide evidence of the hyperdrive. I shall present a perhaps sound hypothesis regarding some sorts or wizarding genetics.
Let X be a dominate Mendelian gene and x be a recessive Mendelian gene. Let x be the magic gene and X the muggle gene. Let there be a very small chance of gene x to not function and assume that it affects no other physical traits of a normal Homo Sapiens. With these postulations set, we have the following combinations:
XX, Xx and xx. Given that X is dominant and the rare genetic "disorder" of a not functioning gene x, we have a very decent hypothesis on wizarding genetics, explaining pureblood, muggleborns and squibs. This hypothesis can be demonstrated with simple Punett squares.

there are star systems known as " Planets" made up in Star Wars that do not exist. Star Wars has nothing to do with Earth. In Harry Potter you see a little of London but its mostly " The Wizarding World"

i didnt say Star Wars takes place on earth. the Wizarding World is still on Earth, no matter how many walls they walk through. i don't know what Q's going on about with the speed of light. i didn't say natural science effects vampires but not wizards. im saying it should and id like to know how, if JKR even thought about it, but im guessing she ignored it all

"Something in their genes make them wizards, right?
But in Twilight, the venom makes them vampires, makes sense scientifically."
I was addressing this.
With something as simple as Punett squares, which I learned when I was 14, I was able to provide plausible evidence for the Mendelian inheritance of magic. Whereas the Meyerian hypothesis stipulates that vampire venom conducts body-wide genetic therapy on adult Homo sapiens. Therefore I think Mendelian inheritance makes more sense than Meyerian genetic therapy.

By the way, I believe that J. K. Rowling addressed the issue of the inheritance of magic on her own website.
And according to my Punett squares, there's no difference between halfbloods and purebloods, or muggleborns.

you forget what you say...you said star wars and harry potter take place on earth. Then some said no...Star Wars takes place in a galaxy far far away and i elaborated.

I said Twilight and Harry Potter

You said Star Wars and Harry Potter...

I said
"at least in Twilight, the venom alters their genes. it makes sense, scientifically."

someone said
"fiction novels are not supposed to make scientific sense unless about a scientific subject matter, since the dna of wizards/witches is never discussed in hp it has no place in this arguement"

We started talking about venom

I said both storeis take place on Earth, so HP should make just as much scientific sense as Twilight

Well, if that is what you said, I apoligise. I assumed we were still discussing Star Wars for some reason.

*Twilight doesn't actually make scientific sense*

it makes a lot of scientifis sense. i'm working on that right now so keep an eye out

I'll make sure to. :) And then I'll debate every single point. ;)

Does it really have to make sense? It is a fantasty novel.
It's like asking 'How could the fairy godmother in Cinderella exist' or 'How could the Frog turn into a Prince?'

Sometimes, things don't need to make sense :) x

^ I agree. Science in fantasy shouldn't really matter unless the author tries to explain things using Science. *coughMEYERcough*.

this is a deserted article but whatever I can't stand to not saying something.

Twilight doesn't actually make scientific sense or rather, sparkling vamps doesn't :| it doesn't make sense in any other way.
I can understand (or rationalize it)why original vampires burn under sunlight. just say that they are night creature living underground for centuries that their skins growing sensitive reactions towards sunlight.
but sparkling vamps. how come?! care to explain?

oh! and magic does exist, just look at asia and africa cultures. it's not in the senses of harry potter's magic (and not houdini's either) but unexplainable magical happening there.