Books vs Movies + PJ *pilot chapter

*HP music theme introduction

No matter how you look at it, the Harry Potter franchise is kind of dead right now.

Granted, this is a bit of a downer note to start on for a pilot chapter for my story, but I think the current stillness with the series must be addressed upfront.

Part of the static nature with the franchise right now has to do with the way Warner Brothers and J. K. Rowling hasn't let it rest for long enough before pushing more upon us.

If they were to release the Fantastic Beasts movies 15 years from now, once more of the people who grew up with Harry Potter were in their 30s or 40s, I guarantee the hype and success around them would be that much more abundant.

But as it stands, nobody really asked for these Fantastic Beasts movies, at this point anyway.

And forcing them down our throats just doesn't help the case for the franchise as a whole, neither does the stage play that's marketed as a book when it really only works if you see it live in person.

It also doesn't do much for the HP brand that the genre that is a part of is not as nearly as big as it once was.

The whole subcategory of fantasy that revolves around medieval kingdoms, magic sorcerers, dragons, swords, goblins and unicorns made a huge mark on the cinema landscape in the early 2000s.

*The term is actually 'Epic high fantasy'.

After 9/11 people were looking for pure escapism in black-and-white good guys and bad guys.

But since then it peaked with Deathly Hallows part two, started it's decline with the Hobbit trilogy and spared for a few exceptions (Game of Thrones) hasn't amounted to much, at least in the movie world since.

Other manifestations of that escapism people still desire have taken the place of the one that focused on knights in shining armor and wizards.

Something like Star Wars and Marvel is still fantasy to a degree, just a different kind of fantasy and execution.

Of course, that's not to say that Harry Potter was ever a full-fledged fantasy in the way that the Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia were.

It's set in a version of the present day real world after all, and the world view isn't quite as black-and-white as it's siblings in middle earth.

But the Harry Potter series still contains many of the mythical tropes people have become tired of, from dragons to magic spells, and I think the mainstream public doesn't really care about the nuances that make it different, at least at this point in time.

Many people see it as the last remnant of a genre that's just not a thing nearly as much as it once was.

Whether they're right is up for debate.

Never fret though my dear Potter Heads, this series will make a return to the beloved pedestal it used to be on some day.

The lifecycle of a product always declines eventually, but just like the Star Wars, nostalgia (and money) will bring it back.

Give it 10-15 years, maybe 20, and when they make the inevitable movie (or streaming series) adaption of that awful stage play Harry Potter and the cursed child will all be rushing to see it.

I think people have forgotten just how huge Harry Potter was only a couple of years ago.

The movies were some of the highest-grossing of all time, with Deathly hallows shattering box office records in its release (Deathly Hallows pt. 2 made 1.3 billion worldwide).

But before that, the books were just as much of a craze.

Never before and never again since has a book series garnered so much popularity and cultural relevance in every facet of the media (Deathly Hallows, the book, sold 8.3 million copies in 24 hours).

People were talking about Harry Potter on late night TV, parents were discussing the merits of the books and some were trying to have the ban.

Kids and young adults alike were treating it like a fashion craze, and it started to get to the point where you were a rebellious rule breaker if you hadn't read at least one Harry Potter book.

Believe me, I can attest to that.

You know, I had some friends that wanted to be x-wings pilots or drive transformers, but more than a fair share of them also wanted to attend a Wizard school.

In the early 2000s J. K. Rowling was a massive superstar, it was well known that she had seven books planned, that she already wrote the final chapter and we were all waiting with bated breath for the next installment in the midnight book party it would entail.

She claimed to have spent five years just planning the story and background of the wizarding world, and that was very evident in everything she wrote, and the way she could answer any question about her lore on a dime.

Rowling's life story too was one of the extremely unlikely but inspiring circumstances, perfect for tabloids in lifetime TV movies to romanticize, but still true all the way through.

When she wrote Harry Potter, she was as close as you could get to be homeless in the UK while still having a roof over your head.

Now, she's the first person to ever reach billionaire status from writing books and also the first to subsequently lose that status because she donates so much to charities.

It dawned on me the other day that the Harry Potter franchise became popular right around the time that the Internet was starting to be used by everyone on the planet.

Because of this, in the early days Harry Potter craze was very much defined by the rudimentary fansite that were inhabited by like-minded Potter Heads on the net.

Passionate fans would go to the midnight book release for the latest installment, read it in less than a day and then eagerly discussed the meaning of every chapter on forums with people all around the world.

And when YouTube launched in 2005, it too was heavily influenced by HP fandom.

I grew up in this age, where Harry Potter parodies and animations and songs were a dime a dozen, and some of them I still hum or quote absentmindedly to this day.

Of course you paired the dawn of the Internet with the fact that the books were still coming out as the movies were being released and you have a perfect soil for a Fanbase to grow.

And after the first movie came out, that's exactly what it did.

Most of the stuff presented in this pilot chapter is my personal opinion, but here's a very real fact.

The Harry Potter film series was one of the most ambitious blockbuster projects ever put to screen.

A 10 year long story that followed its main actors as they grew up in front of the audience's very eyes?

It was and to be honest it's still kind is unprecedented.

What's more impressive is the consistency that was maintained throughout the decade of making the saga.

The locations and practical set pieces stayed the same, the screenwriting, VFX and production team said the same.

And more importantly, the cast (spare for a few unavoidable changes) remained remarkably uniform throughout the entire ordeal.

Emma Watson thought about leaving the series after the fifth movie but managed to convince herself to stay, and regretted considering otherwise for years after.

It's not just that only the consistency of the main trio mattered though.

One of the key things that made the HP universe feel so real was the unchanging supporting cast, mainly composed of esteemed British actors who stayed on for all eight.

People like Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Richard Griffiths, John Hurt, Jason Isaacs, Gary Oldman, Julie Walters, Jim Broadbent, David Thewlis, Helena Bonham-Carter… they made everything feel alive and larger than life.

The only aspect of the HP movies that change drastically from film to film was the director.

The first two were put together by Chris Columbus of home alone fame.

Prisoner of Azkaban was directed by visionary Alfonso Cuarón.

Goblet of Fire saw Mike Newell take on the mantle.

And then the final four films were headed up by David Yates.

This method turned out to be healthier for the franchised than it was initially expected.

Much like the original Star Wars trilogy benefited from having multiple leaders take a turn at steering the ship, the HP franchise was heavily aided by having several different voices contribute their part to form it for the final half.

This was one of many expert decisions by the producers and higher-ups that made the films happen.

Many of whom were clearly passionate about the source material and stuck with the project till the end.

The fact that someone like Steve Kloves, who adapted all seven screenplays, stayed with the series for 10 years was vital to its success and consistency.

And yes, I did say "all seven screenplays".

I will argue day and night with anyone who says that the splitting of Deathly Hallows into two parts wasn't just for the money.

To be fair, in retrospect, there were so many ways the films could've gone wrong or completely misunderstood the source.

Before the release, many were skeptical that they would tarnish the name of the Harry Potter brand or crush the entire literary fanbase.

Luckily, the first two movies had a myriad of people who care deeply about the roots of the source material.

And J. K. Rowling herself was not about to let it be destroyed.

Her top priority was making sure the films were shot exclusively in the UK and never taken to Hollywood.

The importance of Chris Columbus starting off the series cannot be overstated.

Many people tend to disregard the first two Columbus directed movies as kids fluff, because the actors were still young and the stories were nearly as complex.

But they still played a substantial part in setting up the look and feel of the Wizarding World to the other movies to come.

The locations and set pieces of Hogwarts, the iconic musical score by John Williams, the adventurous tone, and of course, the mind blowingly spot on casting choices for the original trio.

All of it was done under the watchful eye of Chris Columbus.

Granted, the Columbus films are very old Hollywood, classically made and even Spielbergian at times.

I'm not gonna go through all the other directors who steered the franchise, but people like Alfonso Cuarón were also instrumental in upping the status quo and maturing the tone as the series went along.

Some people will inevitably say that the contrast between the first HP movie and the last is not an easy one to swallow.

If you compare the tone of the philosopher stone to deathly hallows part two, it's like they're totally different worlds.

The beauty of this series, however, both on paper and on screen is the way it evolves and matures with the characters in with the audience.

I'd argue that the constantly changing nature of the HP series was what made it so special in the end, instead of remaining static and stale all the way through.

And I still haven't even commented on the obvious technical achievements of the series.

All films have beautiful shots, but specifically the last ones, which had some poignant visual storytelling and communication of ideas through the composition.

The VFX throughout the series too remained remarkably ahead of its time when each came out.

The Quidditch stuff in philosopher stone, while it looks dated now, was totally revolutionary and like nothing people had ever seen before in 2001.

And the onset crew at Leavesden studios, always prioritized practical effects over anything created in a computer, from animatronic creatures to real explosions.

Even the musical score, while it went through four different composers, managed to set a distinct and beautiful tone for each film.

I mean just listen to each of this tracks:

Fawkes The Phoenix - John Williams

Harry in Winter - Patrick Doyle

Fireworks - Nicholas Hooper

Obliviate - Alexandre Desplat

They're incredible and they're all from different artists.

So The first question you might ask yourself is: did the movies do the books justice? could you watch the Harry Potter films without reading the books and still have a satisfying experience?

And the answer is… Kinda.

First of all, it's challenging for me to comment on this because I read all the books before I saw any of the movies, so sometimes I forget what was and wasn't in them.

I project my visions of the books onto the movies, instead of vice versa, so for instance the other day I was watching deathly hallows part two and I realized that the mirror Harry owns, which allows Aberfourth Dumbledore to watch him, is never set up, and where he got it is never explained in the movies.

In the books, that belonged to Sirius, who gave it to him in The Order of the Phoenix, you know, it's complicated.

But until recently, I haven't thought about what an average audience member would think when they saw that that plot point had no explanation, and it certainly opened my eyes to how many things in the movies really do come out of nowhere if you had no prior knowledge of the books.

There are definitely some changes in the films, or omissions rather, that don't do the stories any favors.

And some of these omissions make the story seem a whole lot shallower than it really is if you're just watching the movies without context.

For instance, in the books the magical prophecy that essentially foretells Harry as the chosen one is given a lot more backstory and complexity.

The legitimacy of the prophecy and fortune-telling as an ability or question, the prophecy is somewhat up to interpretation, and it doesn't just tell us what's going to happen in the end.

J.K Rowling made sure in her novels that it was for more than just another fantasy hero trope.

If you've only seen the movies though, well, it does seem like every other chosen one scenario from Star Wars to the Matrix.

On top of that, Harry himself in the books is an extremely internal character.

In a book written in third person, JK Rowling was able to examine his inner psyche and thought process on a dime, but in the movies we can only see what Daniel Radcliffe's performance gives us.

Sometimes this is a great thing, but sometimes it's not nearly as effective.

Voldemort too is not nearly as layered in the films as he is in the books.

That's because almost 90% of the half blood Prince is about going back and figuring out Tom Riddle's backstory and what made him the way he is.

It's fascinating stuff, and serves to make him an extremely nuanced antagonist, questioning the "nature vs nurture" of his psychopathic tendencies.

The movie adaptation only touches on this backstory briefly, and it doesn't really do much to differentiate Voldemort from every other super villain in fantasy culture.

Ralph Fiennes is charismatic and brilliant in the role, but he can only do so much.

Of course I could just rattle off the list of every little relevant thing that's in the box that's not in the movies.

...

From Hermione house self civil rights group to Harry's complicated romance with Cho Chang, to the story of the Marauders, the whole plot point where Neville was almost the chosen one, to Harry and Ginny's far more developed relationship…

...To Peter Pettigrew small redemption and demise, to Harry's goodbye with the Dursleys, to the more detailed explanation of Harry's resurrection, to Voldemort's very different defeat surrounded by a crowd, to Remus Lupin's son with Harry as his godfather...

But I'm not gonna list all this stuff.

There are some changes in the movies that were more than warranted and in fact benefited the larger picture.

Harry and Hermione's dancing scene in Hallows part one was a more than welcomed addition.

Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom's romance was a happy accident that nobody could have foreseen, but it actually makes their character resolutions more satisfying.

And there's plenty of fat in the books that while it works on the page was not vital to see in the films.

Like seeing Nearly Headless Nick deathday party.

I guess the conclusion I fall on, for whether the movies live up to the books, is this: The Harry Potter books, as you guess, will always have more depth nuanced worldbuilding and story in general than the films.

That's just how turning a 700 page story into a two hour movie or even two two hour movies works.

But I think for the most part, the movies captured the feeling of the books.

They capture the emotion and the heart and the world that readers love so much.

And more important than that, they captured the truth that makes this so potent and universal.

And yeah, I mean, in many cases they totally nail lots of the important stuff from great casting choices for every character to wonderful set pieces that are just how you imagined they'd be.

So to me, despite the various shortcomings here and there, these movies are probably the best adaptations we could've reasonably asked for.

And let's be honest, they could've been much worse.

If there's one thing that's clear to me, through reading J. K. Rowling's writing and worldbuilding, is that she has a very clear knowledge of world's history, mythology and even etymology.

There have been various critics over the years who claimed that Harry Potter is not all that original, and that it reuses concepts from other sources and tries to pass them off as its own.

To me though, Harry Potter has never tried to pass off the more familiar aspects of its world as something wholly original.

Instead, J. K. Rowling is constantly making callbacks and nods to the legends and cultures that inspired her in the first place, with some even tied directly to the canon.

In the context of Rowling's Wizarding World, it's very likely that some of the myths she makes references to actually occurred, at least partially.

The general consensus implied in the books is that lots of our Muggle mythologies are actually based on early exposure to witches and wizards before they went into hiding, chalking them up to be gods or angels or demons or whatever else.

The further you go into the mythological and historical callbacks in Rowling's work, the more you start to wonder what was intentional and what is just a miraculous coincidence.

Her name choices specifically have always been very pointed.

There are the more obvious characters like Sirius, a man who transforms into a dog and is aptly named after the dog constellation.

Or Remus Lupin, a man who transforms into a werewolf named after both Remus, the Roman emperor raised by wolves, and Lupus the Latin word meaning wolf.

Then there are the more unknown parallels, like Quirinus Quirrell in Philosopher Stone and who is named for the Roman God Janus Quirinus, a man with two faces.

Or Argus Filch named after the mythical Argus who had eyes all over his body to see intruders.

Rowling also employed the use of Victorian flower language and symbolism in nature for some of her plot devices.

Voldemort's wand is made of the wood from a yew tree, a species that is specifically poisonous, often grows in graveyards and for centuries has represented immortality or an omen of doom.

Harry's wand on the other hand, is made of the wood from a holly tree, which usually represents good luck or protection from evil.

Lily and her sister Petunia are also appropriately named for the Victorian flower language. Lilies represent beauty and innocence of hearts and Petunias represent annoyance or anger.

Of course, you're probably aware of the more obvious callbacks to European mythology in the creatures Rowling puts into her world.

Hippogriffs, Phoenixes, Centaurs, Merepeople, Elves, Goblins, dragons and Cerberus.

All that stuff comes from classic myth, accompanied by some other creatures that she invented herself.

Like the Dementors, which represented her depression at the time.

But you got the idea.

Now, time for a controversial opinion/observation.

Percy Jackson and the Olympians, as well as most of its spin-offs, takes the Harry Potter formula and improves upon it.

I know, blasphemy to many of you.

And no, for this segment, I'm not even considering that there exists movies about Percy Jackson.

Now, for those not acquainted with PJ's story, allow me to properly introduce it to you.

It should go without saying, but...spoilers ahead.

A young boy grows up as an outcast with a shitty home life, then one day he discovers that there's a hidden magical world out there that he's a part of.

Not only that, but by entering that world, he gets to leave his shitty home life and be a very powerful and important person.

Then a villain from the past, that threatens both the regular and magical world, comes back and the young boy has to lead the fight against it.

The fight takes place over the course of years and the main cast all grows and matures as the series goes on, which causes some darker themes to arise.

As much as the characters might try to say that the world is dangerous, there's an obvious wish fulfillment aspect to just about everything that makes you wanna be part of it.

Oh yeah, and the protagonist is the subject of a very important prophecy.

Obviously, HP didn't invent this formula, the Chronicles of Narnia did the same thing back in 1950.

However, Harry Potter leaned hard in the wish fulfillment aspect by diving into the setting much deeper than Narnia did.

While Narnia had more of a whimsical fairytale feeling, Harry Potter's world tried to make itself feel like it could actually exist.

Percy Jackson is a twelve year old kid with ADHD and dyslexia, who has gotten kicked out of every school he has ever attended due to his various behavior issues.

He's raised by his mother, a woman named Sally, and is verbally abused by his stepfather Gabe. Percy's father had supposedly died before he was born.

One day during a field trip, one of Percy's teachers is alone with him and it turns into a Fury, a creature from Greek Mythology.

She attacks him and demands to know where he's taken something, but Percy had no clue what she was talking about. Receiving a sword from another teacher, he kills her.

Weeks later, school lets out for the summer and he goes out to a cabin for vacation with his mother.

Before they had the chance to do so, they got attacked by a Minotaur.

During the fighting, Percy's mother has apparently been killed before he managed to rip off the Minotaur's horn and stab it with it.

He finds his way to a nearby summer camp, called Camp Half-blood, filled with more Greek mythological creatures and other kids.

It turns out, Percy is a Demigod, his mother was a mortal but his father was a god.

They just don't know which one yet.

Percy stays at the camp for a few weeks, during which he befriends another demigod named Anabeth, a girl about his age who's much smarter and more knowledgeable about the magical world than he is.

After a fight with a hellhound, Poseidon the god of the ocean officially claims Percy as his son.

This is a big deal, because the big three gods (Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades) all made a pact decades earlier to not father any more demigods.

It turns out that Zeus's master lightning bolt was recently stolen, and Poseidon was the prime suspect, which means that Percy is a suspect too.

To prevent an Olympian civil war, Percy is sent on a quest to the underworld to try and retrieve the bolt from Hades, who they think is the real thief.

Before the quest, he is gifted with a sword and a pair of flying shoes from another camper named Luke.

Percy takes his friends, one of whom is a goofy well-meaning boy and the other is a girl much smarter than both of them, on a series of adventures across the United States before they reach the underworld.

This is similar to most old Greek myths where the heroes would go off to accomplish something and then get sidetracked a dozen times before reaching their destination.

On one of those side quests, they do a favor for Ares (the god of war) and he gives them a backpack full of supplies as a reward.

Curiously, when they reach the underworld, Percy's flying shoes attempt to drag him off to Tartarus, the deepest part of the underworld.

After they meet Hades, he denies taking the bolt, revealing that his helm of darkness was stolen too.

He tells Percy that he'll return his mother, who he has kept as hostage, if he gives him the master lightning bolt of Zeus.

The bolt suddenly appears in the backpack that Ares gave them, and they are forced to flee the underworld.

Percy manages to defeat Ares in a duel and the god returns the stolen healm to hades.

Percy gives the bolt back to Zeus, meets Poseidon for the first time, averts a war and gets his mother returned home.

Everything seems great until he goes back to camp and gets attacked by Luke in the woods.

Luke reveals that he was the real thief and that he was working on the orders of Kronos (the father of the big three Gods), who was cast in the Tartarus thousands of years ago.

Percy survives and Luke runs off to continue his plan to overthrow the Olympians.

Despite having the option to stay at camp half-blood year-round, Percy decides to return home with his mom until the next summer.

And that's the end of the first book.

The next four books in the series deal with the struggle between the Gods and the returning Titans led by Kronos.

If you've never read Percy Jackson, but you know about Harry Potter, the similarities are pretty clear to see.

But both the execution of the formulaic parts and the few differences elevated it, in my humble opinion, above Harry Potter.

Percy Jackson starts off with the protagonist's mother supposedly being killed and him being forced to go on a quest to prevent war between literal Gods.

It's not overly violent or exploitative, it just treats kids as mature enough to handle some darker themes.

In fact, at the end of the first book, Percy send to his mother Medusa's severed head, which she uses to turn his stepfather into stone and then sells him to an art collector.

Yup.

Imagine if Harry set his uncle Vernon on fire and then sold his ashes to a potion maker.

You'd have a different view of the series after that, but you wouldn't really disagree with his actions because he was an abusive pile of garbage.

In both cases, things got darker as time went on, and in both cases it's successful in pulling it off.

Percy Jackson just started in a darker spot, which made it more appealing to kids like me who liked to think that we were edgy or were just looking for something different to compensate for the lack of a worthy Harry Potter continuation.

At the end of the Lightning Thief, Percy learns that an evil force from the past is coming back to destroy both the magical world and the mortal one.

The rest of the books all deal with smaller one-off adventures that directly ties into the fight against that force.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone for example, ends in pretty much the same way, and all the following books also have smaller adventures that tie into the fight against Voldemort.

However, despite Rowling's knowledge about the final book, it's not immediately obvious that that's what's going on at first.

The Chamber of Secrets is all about trying to figure out what's been going on at Hogwarts until the very end when it's revealed that Voldemort is behind everything.

The prisoner of Azkaban is all about a new villain who they think is out to kill Harry until the end when it's revealed that Voldemort is involved.

Then goblet of fire is all about Harry trying to win the Triwizard tournament until it turns out that Voldemort is again involved.

Now let's compare it to Percy Jackson.

In the Sea of Monsters (my least favorite of the first five books), a tree that protects camp half-blood from monsters is poisoned and Percy has to go on a quest to retrieve the legendary Golden fleece to heal it. Meanwhile, Luke and the forces of Kronos are going after it too, hoping to use it to resurrect the old Titan.

Then in the Titan's Curse, Kronos kidnaps the Goddess Artemis, forcing Percy and company to go rescue her.

In both cases, it's immediately obvious that this is all part of something larger, that this isn't just a small quest.

And that gives the entire series a more epic tone than Harry Potter, which decided to essentially start from scratch every time.

And even in the later books, it wasn't always clear-cut how the smaller conflicts tied into the bigger ones.

Admittedly, this is a personal preference, I'm a bigger fan of large overarching stories than bad guys of the week that are fought by the same character cast.

And as much as I love the adventures of Harry and company, the early books did give off that feel when I first read them.

The final book in both series had a giant final battle between the forces of good and evil, but they were done in different ways.

The Last Olympian dedicates the majority of the page count to a massive siege of Manhattan.

As the demigods of camp half-blood have to prevent Kronos and his army from reaching the entrance to Olympus in the Empire State Building, all the while being slowly pushed back.

The sheer scale of the battle is impressive, complete with dragons the size of buildings and gigantic armies of monsters.

It's something I haven't seen replicate outside of epic fantasy.

The only issue I have with it, and this is a serious nitpick, is that Manhattan hasn't been a major setting of the story up until that point.

It's Percy's home, and I was a little concerned about the mortal population of the city being hurt, but as a reader I didn't have much connection to it.

For instance, imagine if the final battle against Voldemort took place at Private Drive.

It would at the very least be kind of odd.

In contrast, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a much longer book that has a lot of other stuff going on before the battle begins.

And that isn't a bad thing.

The hunt for the Hallows is a fun bit of detective/heist work that allows the readers to see how the villains are taking over the magical world from a distance, as well as force the main cast to be outside of the safe zone that was Hogwarts.

And since we've spent six books almost entirely at Hogwarts, with all the people defending it, we have a stronger connection to the battlefield.

And it still has all the same giant armies of monsters and magic that we love to see in a climactic final battle.

But at the same time, the outcome of the battle doesn't have much to do with whether or not Harry and his allies win.

All they have to do is destroy the last few Horcruxes to make Voldemort vulnerable to kill him.

After that, his whole army of wizard Nazis becomes leaderless, so they scurry back to the shadows.

In Percy Jackson, if they somehow managed to kill Kronos before the final battle ended, they still would have had several Titans to deal with.

Not to mention the legions of monsters that they commanded.

There was no easy way out for them, and so for that reason, to me the battle of Manhattan is better than the battle of Hogwarts, even though they're following the same formula.

But then again, don't all epic final battles follow a similar formula?

And you can't talk about either of these series without talking about the prophecies.

As a rule, I dislike prophecies since they're usually done in such a way that they give away the story.

Having already stated my likeness for HP's take on it, in Percy Jackson's case I really like it as well.

For starters, prophecies were an integral part of all Greek myths, and you couldn't tell a story based on them without including one.

And for another, every prophecy in the books is done in a way where you think you know what they mean right up until the end when you realize that you were overlooking something obvious.

For example, in the first book there's a line in the prophecy that says "Percy will be betrayed by the one who calls him a friend", so for most of the quest he's paranoid that Annabeth or Grover will betray him.

But it never comes true, and so he and the readers start to think that the prophecy was just wrong.

Then at the end, the traitor turns out to be Luke.

And there's the main prophecy about Percy saving Olympus.

It doesn't actually say that he's the subject of it; there are several other possible candidates until the very end.

And it doesn't say that he'll save Olympus either.

It says that he'll make a choice that will either save or destroy Olympus.

That choice turns out to be trusting Luke enough to give him a knife that he would use to kill Kronos.

Until the last minute, we don't know exactly what the prophecy was talking about, but in retrospect it makes perfect sense.

The prophecy adds new dimensions to the story, rather than just telling us what will happen upfront or not adding anything at all.

I've heard countless times how the main trio in both cases are cut from similar cloth, and I have few complaints there.

There are enough differences between Grover and Annabeth to Ron and Hermione, to keep them from seeming like copies.

The differences between the two leads are starker though, the most immediate difference between the two is that Percy isn't an orphan.

Both of his parents are alive and well, he just has a distant and uncomfortable relationship with his dad.

That's something that way more kids (or even young adults) can relate to.

More of us have difficult relationships with our parents than no relationship at all.

And almost none of us were stuck with cartoonish evil guardians as well.

Percy's mother has an actual personality and life beyond her son too, she fell in love with Poseidon but knew he would dominate her life if she stayed with him.

And after she leaves her husband, she goes back to college, gets a new job, marries a new husband and eventually has another kid who isn't a Demigod.

The parent of the protagonist has an actual character arc.

Seriously, do you have any idea how rare that is in kids books?

Percy also has ADHD and dyslexia that caused him problems in school, both before and after the story begins.

I don't have a learning disability, at least not that I am aware of, but if I did it would probably have been great to see a character like me work past his issues and become a hero.

It would've let me know that my frustrations and struggles didn't mean I was worthless.

Harry is, for the most part, a normal kid that got thrusted into extraordinary circumstances.

Percy exemplifies more of a very troubled kid who overcomes a lot in order to reach the same position.

And while they both form romances with one of their friends, Percy's is… still not great, but it's a little better then Harry and Ginny's.

At least to me.

There's plenty of time devoted to Percy and Annabeth becoming friends, so it makes sense that they would move on to something more when they're older.

But, they're also cousins.

His father is Poseidon and her mother is Athena, who is Poseidon niece.

If they just ignored that it wouldn't have been as boring as it got at times.

But the last book actually takes time to point out that they aren't related because Gods don't have DNA, which means that it's totally OK for Demigods to date other Demigods.

I mean, just roll with it guys.

Time for another controversial opinion.

I also think that the setting of Percy Jackson is better than Harry Potter's.

Now, before you get mad at me, I agree that Hogwarts is the pinnacle of a wondrous magical place that we all would love to go explore.

But, it's also very disconnected from the Muggle world.

There are various ways that the wizards hide her existence from Muggles, and other than that they keep it to themselves.

Percy and various mythological creatures have to actively hide their existence, but still influence the mortal world and are influenced by it.

The Bermuda Triangle is actually the sea of monsters, guarded by scylla and charybdis.

Every time a Hydra's head is cut off a donut shop opens somewhere.

The Lotus eaters run a hotel in Las Vegas where you can lose track of time and get stuck for decades.

The mythological world is influenced by and profits from the mortal world.

Not not only that, Percy lives the majority of his life in the mortal world, dealing with normal problems like high school.

This all comes together to remind us that when we're done with our escapism we still need to return to the real world eventually.

Both series deal with that idea, but in my opinion, Percy Jackson focuses on the mortal world enough that we don't forget about its existence.

In Harry's case, it's easy to forget about the world outside Hogwarts, so I'd say that the setting isn't as good as it could've been.

It's not just surface stuff that these two series have in common, both of them have pretty similar themes.

Not let me acknowledge what HP still did better.

The most obvious in Harry Potter is that racism and classism are bad, and that's fine, but the more noteworthy one is that in times of crisis the institutions we rely on often fail and we have to solve society's problems ourselves.

In almost every book, there's a point where Harry goes off to try and deal with whatever evil is amok, but he gets in trouble for it because he's breaking the rules.

The laws and institutions of the magical world restrict Harry's attempts to improve the magical world.

In the end, the ministry of magic is unable to even protect itself from being taken over by Voldemort and his wizard Nazis, which left the job of fighting the evil to a paramilitary group of good wizards with little to do with the ministry.

And after the war is over, that same paramilitary went on to reform and improve the ministry, a.k.a. the government.

This is much more poignant, and dare I say, relevant message to send.

Percy Jackson deals with a similar theme, but in a less satisfying way.

Many of the Olympian gods refuse to believe that Kronos is returning at first, but once they do accept that he's back, they are often too caught up in their own petty concerns to actually do anything of substance.

Most of the work is left to the Demigods that serve them.

But a substantial part of Kronos army is made up of demigods disaffected by the way the Olympians have run things.

They feel that if the Titans took over, then they won't be forced to constantly fight the monsters that are always coming after them.

It's not hard to see where they're coming from here, they're angry with the status quo, a.k.a. the Olympians, a.k.a. the government.

The forces of Olympus only managed to defeat Kronos when the Gods finally decided to work together, and after Kronos lieutenant had a change of heart.

Percy does convince the Olympians to reform some of their laws in order to try and prevent another war, so there's at least acknowledgment that these issues actually exist and some progress is made towards fixing them.

In both cases, the conflict is caused and or exacerbated by failures of institutions that are ostensibly there to protect and manage the magical world.

Both series promote the idea that the world is imperfect, and that defeating evil involves not just fighting bad guys but fixing the flaws in the society that gave rise to the bad guys.

It's a smart message.

It's just better executed in Harry Potter's case because it gets more focus on the plot.

Granted, Rick Riordan tackles this from a different angle in the sequel series, the heroes of Olympus.

In that one, it's revealed that the Greek and Roman gods exist together, or rather that they exist as different aspects of the same Gods.

But the Greek and Roman Demigods spend most of their time fighting each other.

No one can deal with the real threat because they're too busy fighting themselves.

The series also deals with institutional failure, but it puts some of the blame on the Demigods themselves.

There's almost a good message about civic responsibility and needing to keep an eye on those in power, but it falls a bit flat.

Still, I have to give credit for at least putting the idea out there.

If someone ever comes along and writes something similar to Rick Riordan, but is more coherent at it's portrayal of big ideas, then I would acknowledge how it improved upon it.

Just like I'm doing for PJ in comparison to HP.

But that's not the end for Riordan's world, there's two spinoffs called 'The Kane Chronicles' and 'Magnus Chase and the gods of Asgard' that deal with Egyptian and Norse mythology respectively.

It confirms that it all takes place in the same world, Magnus Chase is even Annabeth's cousin on her father's side, which makes me wonder if there are other gods out there.

Is the Abrahamic God real too?

There's after all, a Muslim character in the Magnus Chase series.

It's an interesting question to consider, a world where all gods from all mythologies exist side-by-side.

In my opinion, it is a fascinating idea.

One that I don't think has been explored enough.

Perhaps God of War will do it, since it has confirmed the existence of other pantheons of gods.

But I'm sidetracking here.

I won't go into much detail about the spinoffs, because they kind of do the same thing.

Not that's bad or something like it, they all do it very well.

Like I said, they've been following the same formula from the beginning, there's nothing to be ashamed of.

I just wanted to bring up the fact that there's an expanded universe here, and that's really cool to me.

Rick Riordan has taken the formula from making a successful children's fantasy and perfected it, becoming one of the most prominent authors in the world for it.

And while I do love stories like Harry Potter and Narnia and think they're great to get kids into reading, it would be foolish to claim that modern books can't use the same ideas and make something even better.

That's how all art works, by observing various influences and combining them in new ways, the point of this final segment of this pilot wasn't to show off how much better I think Percy Jackson is then Harry Potter.

It's to show how even though they're structurally almost identical, and that structure is currently the best formula for kids' stories, they have some significant differences that set them apart.

I don't like clichés, but the devil is in the details.

So, in the future, if you hear someone criticize a piece of media for being derivative, look into what they're talking about more closely.

Even if the broad strokes are the same, the themes beneath them and the small details can differ wildly enough that at first glance you wouldn't even know how similar they are.

There's nothing new under the sun, everything is derived from something else, and that doesn't matter at all.

—————————————————————

(01/02/2021)

* I salute and welcome you my dearest reader! I hope this introduction helps me to frame how much I care for the original material.

The frequency of updating this fic hasn't been set yet.

Please, make yourself at home and feel free to point out any grammatical problems or inaccuracies in regards to the source material, I wish to preserve and improve the quality of my works as much as I can.

All suggestions are very welcomed!

Thanks for taking the time to read my fic! And if my style interest you, I would recommend you to check out my other fics.

Please stay safe and farewell!