The overall Harry Potter Years 1-7 story arc

[Gaith]

Given that the other Harry Potter thread is understandably focused on the upcoming TV adaptation, and now that Harry Potter Years 1-7 are the franchise's main focus given the cancellation of the Fantastic Beasts series, I figured the time has come to have a general discussion on the overall story arc. (I.e., not necessarily including the Cursed Child play(s) and Hogwarts Legacy 19th century-set game, though one can certainly bring those up if one likes.)

Myself, I read the books and watched the movies as they came out, except I skipped the Deathly Hallows movies because at that point I was old enough to be over the phenomenon, and I didn't much like the book. (I think I rented the DVD of Part 2 from Redbox at one point.) I mostly enjoyed the first four Years (books and movies - I find they're closely enough matched in quality to lump them together by default and then make distinctions, rather than the other way around), and considered the climax of Goblet of Fire to be the series' clear high point, but considered Years 5-7 a case of diminishing returns. The end of Goblet of Fire made two promises - that Voldemort would be a major fixture of the story from then on, and that same story would start to go international, with an expanding narrative scope. Alas, both promises were broken: Voldemort was mostly offscreen during Year 5 until the climax, pretty much entirely absent from Year 6, as I recall, and then mostly offscreen again in Year 7 until the Battle of Hogwarts. The core trio, meanwhile, never left the British Isles during that time, and far from rallying the students of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang, to say nothing of other schools and adults from other countries, the rest of the world was pretty much absent from the big finale, IIRC. And, IMO, the stories Years 5-7 did tell weren't interesting enough to make up for those failures, with Year 5 being the clear low point. My full thoughts on the series' diminishing returns can be found here.

So, what does everyone else think? Do you love the series, dislike the series, think it maintained consistent quality throughout, or do you agree it steadily improved in the first half, and then stumbled and limped to a disappointing finish? And, how does that shape your thoughts on the upcoming TV adaptation? Personally, even apart from the Rowling problem, I find that the movies give all seven Years about the amount of screen time they deserve, except for the rushed climax of Prisoner of Azkaban, so I'm not interested in the series replaying the series with a slower albeit more detailed pace, and with a less all-star cast of British stage and screen legends. (If I were in charge of the show, I'd demand major rewrites to Years 5-7, such that they'd be very different stories than the books, but that would obviously never happen.)

 

[DonIago]

Is the poll about the books or the films? Because they're two different beasts, pun intended.

Not that I want any exposure to anything JKR-related these days.

 

[Gaith]

Is the poll about the books or the films? Because they're two different beasts, pun intended.

Not in terms of the overall story, they're not. Yeah, the movies leave a lot out, and change some minor things here and there, but the overall story is very much the same.

 

[DonIago]

Sure, but I'd say the version told by the books, especially the later books, is more compelling than what's told by the films, in part because the movies leave so much out.

Goblet of Fire in particular suffered, because as TUC also demonstrated, it's hard to tell a good whodunit story when you eliminate "extraneous" characters.

 

[Gaith]

^ And I'd counter that Order of the Phoenix is a dull and endless book, vastly improved by the far shorter experience of watching the movie, but that said movie is also much less compelling than the one before and the one after, precisely because its story is so comparatively weak.

And sure, Goblet of Fire the movie may have had the Year 4 story pared down to the bone, especially with regard to the mystery subplot but it's also arguably the most vibrant of the films, due in large part to the Triwizard Tournament and the adding of the foreign students to the already quite numerous cast.

 

[DonIago]

Which doesn't change my point that my view on the later films is different than my view on the later books, something that the poll doesn't appear to account for, which is what prompted my initial question of whether the poll was asking about the books or the films.

 

[camdudetenger2018]

i think film series goblet of fire order of phoneix half blood prince and deadly hallows part 1 and 2 were the best ones

 

[JD]

I really liked the few books, I'm not sure if I'd say they got better with each one, but overall they were better than the earlier ones.

Myself, I read the books and watched the movies as they came out, except I skipped the Deathly Hallows movies because at that point I was old enough to be over the phenomenon, and I didn't much like the book. (I think I rented the DVD of Part 2 from Redbox at one point.) I mostly enjoyed the first four Years (books and movies - I find they're closely enough matched in quality to lump them together by default and then make distinctions, rather than the other way around), and considered the climax of Goblet of Fire to be the series' clear high point, but considered Years 5-7 a case of diminishing returns. The end of Goblet of Fire made two promises - that Voldemort would be a major fixture of the story from then on, and that same story would start to go international, with an expanding narrative scope. Alas, both promises were broken: Voldemort was mostly offscreen during Year 5 until the climax, pretty much entirely absent from Year 6, as I recall, and then mostly offscreen again in Year 7 until the Battle of Hogwarts. The core trio, meanwhile, never left the British Isles during that time, and far from rallying the students of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang, to say nothing of other schools and adults from other countries, the rest of the world was pretty much absent from the big finale, IIRC. And, IMO, the stories Years 5-7 did tell weren't interesting enough to make up for those failures, with Year 5 being the clear low point. My full thoughts on the series' diminishing returns can be found here.

That's really not a weakness of the books, they made absolutely no such promises, so that is entirely on you for having unrealistic expectations, it's not fair to hold it against them that they didn't do things they were never going to do. I thought it was pretty clear all along that the series was always going to focus on Hogwarts and the kids there.

 

[ichab]

Not in terms of the overall story, they're not. Yeah, the movies leave a lot out, and change some minor things here and there, but the overall story is very much the same.

True, but when it comes to rating how the story is told, it very much matters which version we are talking about. If I was to rate The Half Blood Prince, I would rate the book a 10 out of 10 and the movie a 6 out of 10. The book told a deep and compelling story while the movie was a cheap, readers digest version that left too many important events out: Less flashbacks, no battle after Dumbledore was murdered and no funeral. Instead we get long, boring moments of Malfoy staring at a vanishing cabinet.

 

[Takeru]

I dislike the series, it's full of plot holes and not nearly as well structured as it appears at first glance. The wizarding world makes no sense and Rowling throws new magical abilities in when she needs them for a new book without considering how this affects the previous books.
Take the Hogwarts Express for example, the idea is cute enough for a simple children's book but then she introduces floo powder, apparition and port keys all of which make traveling to Hogwarts much easier and convenient so why on earth would all the wizard parents pack up, travel to London and put their kids on a train and then travel back home when they could get up after breakfast and apparate or portkey into Hogsmeade and simply walk to the Hogwarts gates? Portkeys are specifically shown to be used to easily transport large numbers of people to a single location when they are introduced in book 4.

The wizarding world seems to be oblivious of muggle customs, clothes, technology, entertainment etc. but they also integrate muggle born wizards and witches, there are marriages between wizards and muggles and many travel to London regularly to the Hogwarts Express, the Leaky Cauldron to get into Diagon Alley, to the ministry of magic etc., so how does this make sense?

Quidditch. A completely pointless game because we never see one that's not decided by the seeker catching the golden snitch so why even have teams? This could be just two seekers looking for the snitch only when the other players don't affect the outcome.

The entire house elf slavery subplot. They are enslaved and brainwashed into liking it, there's really no room for debate here, that's simply what's happening. Hermione is 100% right with her protest but she is portrayed as a weirdo and ridiculed even by kids from muggle families and then the entire subplot fizzles out and goes nowhere. Why even include it in the first place if there's no point to it?

 

[Anwar]

The book series starts to go off the rails beginning with Goblet of Fire, the writing becomes unnecessarily bloated and convoluted, the characterizations go wonky (Poor Ron...) and the plots become less coherent compared to the first 3 books which were tightly plotted and lacked padding.

 

[Gaith]

That's really not a weakness of the books, they made absolutely no such promises, so that is entirely on you for having unrealistic expectations

LOL, Rowling, not me, was the one who wrote that there are wizarding societies all around the world, not just in Britain, and I'm pretttty sure I remember Dumbledore saying something about the importance of international cooperation to resist evil at the end of Goblet of Fire the book... not to mention the fact Order of the Phoenix (the book) established the position of Supreme Mugwump, the elected chairman and leader of the International Confederation of Wizards. So, no, the fact that Rowling expanded her fictional world to other countries, and made foreigners active characters in Year 4, neither of which she in any way had to do, only to never do anything meaningful with them is "absolutely" on her, not me.

I thought it was pretty clear all along that the series was always going to focus on Hogwarts and the kids there.

Except Year 7, a few brief cutaways aside, doesn't take place at Hogwarts at all until the big climax, so it's entirely fair of me to opine that 1) the series took too long to get the core trio leave Hogwarts after Voldy's return at the end of Year 4 (one year I can accept, but not two), and 2) the story outside of Hogwarts wasn't interesting enough once they did. All IMO, of course.

The book series starts to go off the rails beginning with Goblet of Fire, the writing becomes unnecessarily bloated and convoluted, the characterizations go wonky (Poor Ron...) and the plots become less coherent compared to the first 3 books which were tightly plotted and lacked padding.

I think Azkaban is the best-directed of the movies, and probably the best overall, but the thing I appreciate about Goblet of Fire is it was the first to be directed by an actual Brit, who brought a lot of authentic British attitude and flavor the earlier movies lacked. As someone who actually attended and lived at a boarding (high) school in the US, Goblet the movie is the only one that reminded me of my time in that kind of environment. But Year 5 is so drab and dull (book and movie) that said flavor doesn't extend to the David Yates-directed period at all.

 

[JD]

LOL, Rowling, not me, was the one who wrote that there are wizarding societies all around the world, not just in Britain, and I'm pretttty sure I remember Dumbledore saying something about the importance of international cooperation to resist evil at the end of Goblet of Fire the book... not to mention the fact Order of the Phoenix (the book) established the position of Supreme Mugwump, the elected chairman and leader of the International Confederation of Wizards. So, no, the fact that Rowling expanded her fictional world to other countries, and made foreigners active characters in Year 4, neither of which she in any way had to do, only to never do anything meaningful with them is "absolutely" on her, not me.

All she was doing establishing that there are schools in other countries, and showing us a bit of what they're students and teachers were like, and then leaving things open for them to show back up. Anything beyond that is you reading things into it that were pretty clearly never the intention.

Except Year 7, a few brief cutaways aside, doesn't take place at Hogwarts at all until the big climax, so it's entirely fair of me to opine that 1) the series took too long to get the core trio leave Hogwarts after Voldy's return at the end of Year 4 (one year I can accept, but not two), and 2) the story outside of Hogwarts wasn't interesting enough once they did. All IMO, of course.

It was the finale, so that's a special case. The series was always about Hogwarts, and it was pretty clear from the beginning that that was always where the series focus was going to be, so expecting the series to move away from that for any significant amount of time was completely unrealistic. And the kids were only 14 up to 17, so there was no way they were ever going to do anything beyond going to school.

 

[Anwar]

Also, Rowling was pretty bad at character development and building up a real cast of characters.

One of the big reasons for the "Shipping" (Ugh) War is that she wrote only ONE female character for the majority of the series in a mostly male cast. She was pretty bad at developing the others who needed it, like Ginny.

 

[DonIago]

Could have been a good opportunity to introduce adolescents to the idea of polyamory.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I've never actually read Deathly Hallows. While I enjoyed the series, by the time Deathly Hallows was published, I had already moved on the from the series. Never even saw the Deathly Hallows movies until much later.

 

[Gaith]

All she was doing establishing that there are schools in other countries, and showing us a bit of what they're students and teachers were like, and then leaving things open for them to show back up. Anything beyond that is you reading things into it that were pretty clearly never the intention.

Like I said, her intentions were flawed. When Year 4 of a 7-year series is more interesting and compelling than years 5-7, that's a problem.

As for "clear intentions," as I recall, shortly before the climactic Harry vs. Voldy duel at the end of Deathly Hallows, Harry has to convince the ghost of the daughter Rowena Ravenclaw, who, IIRC, he'd never once previously spoken with, to locate a Horcrux for him. If one were to ask a first-time reader of the books who'd just finished Goblet of Fire what "clear intentions" would suggest would be more important to the finale of the series, the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students or the ghost of Rowena Ravenclaw's daughter, do you really think they'd pick the latter?

It was the finale, so that's a special case. The series was always about Hogwarts, and it was pretty clear from the beginning that that was always where the series focus was going to be, so expecting the series to move away from that for any significant amount of time was completely unrealistic.

If I were to buy into that framework, then, Voldy shouldn't have returned until the end of Year 5, because, like I said, two years of him being alive again before the special-case Year 7 was too darn long, as it doomed those two years to be mostly inconsequential to the overall story.

 

[ichab]

Take the Hogwarts Express for example, the idea is cute enough for a simple children's book but then she introduces floo powder, apparition and port keys all of which make traveling to Hogwarts much easier and convenient so why on earth would all the wizard parents pack up, travel to London and put their kids on a train and then travel back home when they could get up after breakfast and apparate or portkey into Hogsmeade and simply walk to the Hogwarts gates? Portkeys are specifically shown to be used to easily transport large numbers of people to a single location when they are introduced in book 4.

For the same reason that some people transport by plane, helicopter, train or automobile.

The wizarding world seems to be oblivious of muggle customs, clothes, technology, entertainment etc. but they also integrate muggle born wizards and witches, there are marriages between wizards and muggles and many travel to London regularly to the Hogwarts Express, the Leaky Cauldron to get into Diagon Alley, to the ministry of magic etc., so how does this make sense?

Just because they marry muggles doesn't mean they don't still hold on to their wizarding traditions.

Quidditch. A completely pointless game because we never see one that's not decided by the seeker catching the golden snitch so why even have teams? This could be just two seekers looking for the snitch only when the other players don't affect the outcome.

I don't believe the match in The Half Blood Prince was decided by catching the snitch. And in "Order of the Phoenix" book, Ginny caught the snitch, but Gryffindor still lost because they were down by more than 150 to Slytherin when it was caught. That was one of MANY parts of that book which were left out of the movie.

The entire house elf slavery subplot. They are enslaved and brainwashed into liking it, there's really no room for debate here, that's simply what's happening. Hermione is 100% right with her protest but she is portrayed as a weirdo and ridiculed even by kids from muggle families and then the entire subplot fizzles out and goes nowhere. Why even include it in the first place if there's no point to it?

That WAS the point. She is trying to free a group of people that, turns out, have no interest in being freed. Another part of the book left out of the movie.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I dislike the series, it's full of plot holes and not nearly as well structured as it appears at first glance. The wizarding world makes no sense and Rowling throws new magical abilities in when she needs them for a new book without considering how this affects the previous books.

I don't think I realized just how poor the worldbuilding was until JKR posted a magical history of the United States online before the first Fantastic Beasts film. She showed absolutely no understanding of the native peoples, the size of North America, or American history from colonial days onward.

And, of course, there's her famous explanation for why wizards in her world don't know a thing about plumbing -- they can just magic it away.

It's a very weird setting, and it doesn't withstand a lot of scrutiny. I saw some interesting discussions on Twitter recently about how Hogwarts is a trade or vocational school. instead of learning how to auto mechanics or welders, the students learn how to do magic. But they don't learn math or history, they don't study literature or science. They're not learning skills that would enable them to live in the Muggle world. Even Hermione, the brightest witch of her age, would be, despite her Muggle background, gets indoctrinated into the wizarding world's ways. In a fanfic I've mentioned before, Sherlock Holmes and the Ravenclaw Codex, it ends with Sherlock Holmes ruminating on the wizarding world and concluding that in spite of the power the wizards can wield they ultimately are insignificant because they lack the knowledge and imagination that drives the modern (well, Victorian) age.

 

[Takeru]

For the same reason that some people transport by plane, helicopter, train or automobile.

And people like the muggle hating elitist Malfoys drag their precious son through a city of millions of muggles to a muggle train station to board a muggle method of transport shared with half- and mudbloods because ... ???

The Hogwarts Express as an option is perfectly fine but it's not initially presented as an option but simply as the way for students to get to Hogwarts.

Just because they marry muggles doesn't mean they don't still hold on to their wizarding traditions.

It's not about holding on to traditions it's that wizards seem to be almost completely oblivious about how the muggle world works despite also clearly having contact with muggles enough to fall in love with and marry them.
Even a self declared muggle fan like Arthur Weasley barely understands anything. He never thought about reading muggle newspapers, or novels or got to London and watch a play or sit in a cafe or whatever.

It makes no sense.

I don't believe the match in The Half Blood Prince was decided by catching the snitch. And in "Order of the Phoenix" book, Ginny caught the snitch, but Gryffindor still lost because they were down by more than 150 to Slytherin when it was caught. That was one of MANY parts of that book which were left out of the movie.

Okay, so one match out of how many? The fact remains that with catching the snitch being worth 150 points the only way it will not be game deciding is if one team is completely outclassed. It's not a well balanced game if one member on each team is the only one who matters hon it comes to winning or losing 95% of the time.
The game only ending when the snitch is caught makes it even more important, let's say teams are roughly equally strong and for the duration of the game the lead switches, sometimes team A leads by 10 or 20 points, then team B and back to team A, after about 30 minutes of this why should the audience keep watching? It would be obvious pretty fast that nothing happening actually matters as far as the outcome of the game is concerned.

The snitch should be worth significantly fewer points, like 25. Then the question "Should I catch it or not?" would be constantly on the seekers mind, let's say Harry seems the snitch, Slytherin is currently leading by 20 points but they are also making a run to score again. Does Harry risk making a dash for the snitch? Because if the catches it before Slytherin score again Gryffindor wins, if they score before Harry reaches the snitch Slytherin wins and of course by trying to catch the snitch Harry would also alert the Slytherin seeker to the snitches location.
They could also add other methods to end the game, it could end if the snitch is caught, or if one team leads by more than 100 points or after two rounds of 30 minutes. Whichever happens first ends the game.

That WAS the point. She is trying to free a group of people that, turns out, have no interest in being freed. Another part of the book left out of the movie.

If they truly loved to serve humans, if that made them truly happy and they saw it as the perfect way of living there'd be no need to magically bind them to a family and forcing them to do their bidding. That this is done is proof that they are indeed enslaved and brainwashed.

One more example? Why do the Hogwarts houses exist? Some people say for organizational reasons because it makes to divide the grades into smaller subgroups and sure, that makes sense on some level.
But why divide them by personality trades and marking the Slytherins kid as the assholes three quarters of the school immediately hates out of principle? Very early on we are told that there has never been an evil wizard who didn't come from Slytherin (which turns out to not be true but it is the narrative). So why on earth do they take children from already mostly not great families together, toss them into the "evil" house and make other kids avoid the Slytherin kids when being separated from the influence of their families would be the perfect opportunity to kids from death eater families interact with other kids and learn that maybe what their parents have told them isn't true?
Just throw the sorting hat into some closet and sort the kids randomly.

I don't think I realized just how poor the worldbuilding was until JKR posted a magical history of the United States online before the first Fantastic Beasts film. She showed absolutely no understanding of the native peoples, the size of North America, or American history from colonial days onward.

She's really not a very good writer and was very lucky people fell in love with Potter before the cracks in the world and story became obvious.

She also doesn't understand how to simplify stories for an adaptation. The movies wanted to remove Kreacher but Rowling told them he'd be important later so he was included. Turns out he wasn't actually important, the only thing he did was tell about the locket but that could have been easily resolved by the movies having Dumbledore and Harry find and destroy the real locket in the cave at the end of Half-Blood Prince which would have allowed the seventh movies to drop the ministry infiltration.

Rowling was so unimaginative that she used the exact same setup twice in the last book, the trio uses polyjuice potion to assume other people's indentities and infiltrate Gringott's/the ministry of magic to retrieve and destroy the cup/locket. Losing one of those subplots wouldn't hurt the story at all, it all could have been restructured and simplified.