Harry Potter Vs. Twilight
add a link
How Star Wars, Star Trek, The Matrix, and Harry Potter are Actually the Same Movie
How Star Wars, Star Trek, The Matrix, and Harry Potter are Actually the Same Movie
Similarities between these well known stories
Keywords: harry potter, similar, star trek, star wars, the matrix
|
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.
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.
But lots of stories have similar plot-lines to others. The way the plot-lines have been detailed makes them very different stories.
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.
Anything else?
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.
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
@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.
trust me
i have a friend who is like a sister
and i have a sister
there are alot of differences
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.
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
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.
Nobody said anything about plagiarism. You said it similarities, but we've said (and proven) that they are not.
maybe its not exactly genetics, but theres something scientific that makes them what they are, right?
nobody disproved sisterly love as being a similarity.
what makes them magic? what gives them the ability? are there genes magically alteres, or it that just a plot hole?
And I said that the sisterly love should have been a similarity.
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.
*some mothers do 'ave 'em'* basically sums up what I'm saying. A midichlorian count is random. What don't you understand.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
hope that explains a little missknowitall lol
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.
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.
And according to my Punett squares, there's no difference between halfbloods and purebloods, or muggleborns.
"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
*Twilight doesn't actually make scientific sense*
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
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.
Sign In or join Fanpop to add your comment