That’s not really the point though. The post isn’t about something new since Star Wars. The idea is something new with a similar scope and scale of Star Wars. They’re not using that as an example of the last thing that was made.
If you think Harry Potter doesn’t have the scale of Star Wars then you’re crazy. As proof of this, Universal built their Harry Potter lands, and Disney tried to compete with their Star Wars land. They’re pretty equal in scale. (Well, unless you mean the scale of their universe, but that’s silly.)
Did I? The OP is obviously discussing the market share, or culture share. HP obviously is similar to SW. If they meant the number of other pieces of media then sure, SW is bigger, but not for the same point in time. HP is much larger for how old it is.
If I’m still misunderstanding, would you care to explain, rather than just saying it’s misunderstanding it?
You did, yes. They weren’t comparing Harry Potter to Starwars at all, they were just pointing out what the OP meant by using the example of Starwars/Marvel.
I don’t think you’re right. The OP is about something new within our lifetimes. HP is for most of us. The person contradicting originally said the issue was that it wasn’t new. Relative to what? It’s within our lifetimes, like the post says.
Ok, so next they talk about scope and scale. This is the part that could be misunderstood. Yeah, they aren’t as big as SW yet, but SW had decades. Both of these are probably similarly large to SW for the same length of time after release. If anything, HP is larger, in market share, culture share, main entries, theme parks, and just about everything else. If they meant something else then yeah, I misunderstood and, and I can’t see anything else it could have meant to contradict that they don’t fit what the OP was discussing.
What people are trying to explain to you here is this. You read the original post wrong. You read it as nothing new has been made since Star Wars. So you came up with examples of new things since Star Wars. Which was never the argument.
The original post was saying that in the future, meaning after the date it was posted which was like a month ago, something completely new of a huge cultural significance and a massive scale will be created that has nothing to do with anything right now. It’s a post about human Innovation and creativity and about how new things are always on the horizon.
The point of the comment was that this is the most boring statement ever though. It happens all the time. “Tomorrow, the sun is probably going to rise!” That’s not insightful. The point of the comment was that you don’t need to wait for “the next big thing.” Yeah, IPs rule everything, but new big things are still constantly being made.
Edit: Also, the OP says “in our lifetimes.” That doesn’t mean after that post. It means since “we” were born. Most people on this platform are at least as old as HP.
Another very popular franchise of questionable quality is The Big Bang Theory, which now has three spinoff series. Good quality? Debatable. Very popular, profitable, and likely to continue expanding? Yes.
Well I absolutely do not think Harry Potter has the same scale as Star Wars. It’s not nearly as well thought out or as extensive or is interconnected. It was written by a brain dead Turf who had had to retcon every single book because she couldn’t keep her thoughts straight after when she wrote the next one.
However that was absolutely not the point I was making.
I don’t think you’re aware of how poorly written most of Star Wars is then.
Yes, the writer for HP sucks, and the books are poorly written, but that’s not really relevant to this discussion. Just watch the sequels of Star Wars especially for how poorly written it is. None of this affects the original premise of the post. There are other things written significantly better that aren’t as popular, but the OP wasn’t talking about those.
If you want to argue that only the original series of SW matters, that has a tiny scale. It hardly explains anything and it just exists in a universe that isn’t explained. The OP isn’t talking about just the original trilogy.
Obviously there’s more SW content though, but it’s had a few decades head start. The point is the HP is a similar scale for the same time period (if anything, it’s significantly larger).
Of course none of that had anything to do with the point of the post. Not even Star Wars had anything to do with the point of the post. Which seems like the thing you’re not getting past here.
That’s not really the point though. The post isn’t about something new since Star Wars. The idea is something new with a similar scope and scale of Star Wars. They’re not using that as an example of the last thing that was made.
If you think Harry Potter doesn’t have the scale of Star Wars then you’re crazy. As proof of this, Universal built their Harry Potter lands, and Disney tried to compete with their Star Wars land. They’re pretty equal in scale. (Well, unless you mean the scale of their universe, but that’s silly.)
for one, harry potter is older than MCU
It’s not older than Marvel. Yeah, it’s older than the current thing, but they’ve been making Marvel movies my entire life. Spiderman is Marvel.
It says “in our lifetimes” though. HP is in pretty much all of our lifetimes. There are some people younger, but I don’t think very many.
the Raimi films are not the massive Star Wars–level media franchise the post is referring to.
You’ve misunderstood their comment.
Did I? The OP is obviously discussing the market share, or culture share. HP obviously is similar to SW. If they meant the number of other pieces of media then sure, SW is bigger, but not for the same point in time. HP is much larger for how old it is.
If I’m still misunderstanding, would you care to explain, rather than just saying it’s misunderstanding it?
You did, yes. They weren’t comparing Harry Potter to Starwars at all, they were just pointing out what the OP meant by using the example of Starwars/Marvel.
I don’t think you’re right. The OP is about something new within our lifetimes. HP is for most of us. The person contradicting originally said the issue was that it wasn’t new. Relative to what? It’s within our lifetimes, like the post says.
Ok, so next they talk about scope and scale. This is the part that could be misunderstood. Yeah, they aren’t as big as SW yet, but SW had decades. Both of these are probably similarly large to SW for the same length of time after release. If anything, HP is larger, in market share, culture share, main entries, theme parks, and just about everything else. If they meant something else then yeah, I misunderstood and, and I can’t see anything else it could have meant to contradict that they don’t fit what the OP was discussing.
What people are trying to explain to you here is this. You read the original post wrong. You read it as nothing new has been made since Star Wars. So you came up with examples of new things since Star Wars. Which was never the argument.
The original post was saying that in the future, meaning after the date it was posted which was like a month ago, something completely new of a huge cultural significance and a massive scale will be created that has nothing to do with anything right now. It’s a post about human Innovation and creativity and about how new things are always on the horizon.
The point of the comment was that this is the most boring statement ever though. It happens all the time. “Tomorrow, the sun is probably going to rise!” That’s not insightful. The point of the comment was that you don’t need to wait for “the next big thing.” Yeah, IPs rule everything, but new big things are still constantly being made.
Edit: Also, the OP says “in our lifetimes.” That doesn’t mean after that post. It means since “we” were born. Most people on this platform are at least as old as HP.
Another very popular franchise of questionable quality is The Big Bang Theory, which now has three spinoff series. Good quality? Debatable. Very popular, profitable, and likely to continue expanding? Yes.
Well I absolutely do not think Harry Potter has the same scale as Star Wars. It’s not nearly as well thought out or as extensive or is interconnected. It was written by a brain dead Turf who had had to retcon every single book because she couldn’t keep her thoughts straight after when she wrote the next one.
However that was absolutely not the point I was making.
I don’t think you’re aware of how poorly written most of Star Wars is then.
Yes, the writer for HP sucks, and the books are poorly written, but that’s not really relevant to this discussion. Just watch the sequels of Star Wars especially for how poorly written it is. None of this affects the original premise of the post. There are other things written significantly better that aren’t as popular, but the OP wasn’t talking about those.
If you want to argue that only the original series of SW matters, that has a tiny scale. It hardly explains anything and it just exists in a universe that isn’t explained. The OP isn’t talking about just the original trilogy.
Obviously there’s more SW content though, but it’s had a few decades head start. The point is the HP is a similar scale for the same time period (if anything, it’s significantly larger).
Of course none of that had anything to do with the point of the post. Not even Star Wars had anything to do with the point of the post. Which seems like the thing you’re not getting past here.