How many years until Harry Potter isn't relevant anymore? And what do you think will be the next big trend?

How many years until Harry Potter isn't relevant anymore? And what do you think will be the next big trend?

Harry Potter will be relevant for the rest of our lives. The only reason it's relevant now is because of the nostalgia power it has for people that are now in their twenties with lots of disposable income.

It's going to be one of those things like The Beatles or Ghostbusters that will never totally go away as long as the generation is constantly looking to their youth, and for the vast majority of people that will only end in death.

That's just sad. I wish the nostalgia trend would go away

I think it will remain in history but it will be considered mediocre. Not bad, just ok if you aren't over 13-15 years old.

It was never 'relevant'.
Oh, it'll stagger along for decades, a property that generates income for generations by targeting children and their parents, sure.
People point to Harry Potter and say
>"Wow! She's a billionaire! The Harry Potter movies made almost $15 BILLION dollars! How impactful! How important! How 'relevant'!"
It isn't.
At all.
I'll show you.
Consider Winnie the Pooh.
No, fucking seriously.
Winnie the Pooh as a franchise has been around for about 90 years. I has sold a ton of books, movies, TV shows, blah, blah, blah.
In court cases where Disney was fighting to keep intellectual control of Winnie the Pooh it was determined that the Winnie the Pooh franchise generates about $4 Billion in income *every year* and has been doing so for 20 years. Between 1997 and 2017 (the entire duration of the Harry Potter franchise) the Winnie the Pooh franchise outearned the Harry Potter franchise 400%.
Let me repeat that - during the height of Harry Potter's popularity Winnie the Pooh was making 4x as much money.
Now - who thinks Winnie the Pooh is important? Or that Winnie the Pooh is 'relevant'? Considering the longevity and the money, should writers emulate Winnie the Pooh?
Harry Potter isn't that big a deal.

Sorry
*"and has been doing so for 40 years"

Sources please; I'm awed and intrigued and I want to believe.

But if you compare the impact (more crassly, the revenue) of Winnie the Pooh when it first came out to the figures now, it's probably increased exponentially over time, and the starting position was probably smaller than HP's current one. So you could predict a similar trend in future with the latter property.

-Variety June 2013 listed the values of Disney franchises, including Winnie the Pooh showing that only the Star Wars and James Bond films make more and discussing general value
-Court findings from the 2003 copyright suit and appeals confirm the annual income of Pooh franchise
-Forbes in September 2010 and again in August of 2015 confirmed the value of the Harry Potter franchise
-Fortune discussed the total value of Harry Potter in December 2015 also confirmed the Harry potter franchise value
[I tried posting links different ways but it was always blocked as spam. Sorry]

You're missing the real point.
Winnie the Pooh is *massively* successful - in print continuously for 90 years; 16 full-length movies; ten hour long films; 4 TV series with a combined 16 seasons; over a dozen high-selling video games; dozens of high-selling books for infants, children, and YA.
It is incredibly, wildly successful and popular.
>here is the point
Ever hear anyone claim Winnie the Pooh is 'relevant' to literature? 'Important' writing? Ever hear someone talking about how they are going to study Milne to replicate his vast literary success?
Nope.
The point is - Harry Potter is successful, sure, it it was never, ever 'relevant'.
Look at it another way
All time sales of Huckleberry Finn?
>20 million copies
All time sales of Flowers in the Attic?
>40 million copies
Is Flowers in the Attic twice as 'relevant' to literature as Huckleberry Finn?

yesterday I saw a mother and her kid at a coffee place and the kid was reading one of the HP books, the one where hes riding some eagle on the cover, it will never stop. get used to it, sweety ;)

consider it was one of the first YA books that I read when I was in middle school and genuinely immersed me in reading, writing and drawing. Yeah it lost its magic as I grew up, and it's not exceptional when it comes to technicality but it still made an impact. suck my dick kiddo, and choke on it.

She's a one trick phony and HP was just to see if publishers could sell a pretty shitty book as a marketing gimmick. The movies will probably be remembered as doing a great deal of damage to cinema but the novels will be remembered in a way that a lot of Tolkien wannabe copycats of the 80s were trying to cash in on a cheap trend.

You're sort of person I love to see 'discuss lit-ra-chure'.
Did I say HP was *bad*?
Nope.
I loved Winnie the Pooh as a kid, myself. And I read L'Amour to relax. I have friends that read Harry Potter.
Great! Have fun! If Animorphs hooks a 9 year old on reading, wonderful!
But Animorphs is not 'important literature'. They are fun books, and that's great. Transformers is a fun movie, but it isn't 'relevant' cinema.
You like HP? Fine by me, knock yourself out.
Just don't confuse the fact that you enjoy a spam sandwich with spam being 'relevant' to cuisine.

But Winnie the Pooh is a landmark in children's literature and part of our cultural landscape? In what way is it not relevant?

Until capitalism is overturned, and children have equal financial and educational opportunities, so they don't identify with a poor and mistreated boy inheriting lods of emone and being brought to magic school

spam quite relevant to hawaiin cuisine

harry potter is actually pretty good though.

Shouldn't you be stinking up a Chomsky thread?

Ghostbusters is a cool movie mate.

It won't be long because climate change will kill most people off.

>1
>My books
... I wish...