Hello Ted.
As someone who experienced Harry Potter fatigue a while back, I was intrigued by the NYTimes characterization of *this* particular film as “filler” (I thought that many of the films have been visual filler, none really exploded the possibilities of imagination available in Rowling’s text). I wish the reviewer had contextualize this fatigue as not necessarily specific to HP but as part of the inevitable shift that happens when a book series completes its run and the films lag behind but not long enough behind to have an established, long-term fan base e.g. Lord of the Rings or Chronicles of Narnia (though Narnia poses an interesting question because beyond Lion, Witch & Wardrobe which has for a while been treated as a stand-alone book, like The Hobbit, it seems as if the juggernaut of Narnia films might be extinguished before it even gets going).

This is a lag time that seems more acute when book series become feature films as opposed to television series (True Blood springs to mind) where the production turn around time is shorter and where there’s a way to maintain (and even extend) subplots which tend to get truncated severely to fit a feature’s (even generous at 2.5 hours) running time.

The overexposure of the *character* seems oddly juxtaposed to the overexposure of the *franchise* which, in my opinion, is Rowling wanting to have it both ways: elevate a rather derivative (though cleverly so) story of an orphan boy with special powers to the status of “literature” while accepting licensing agreements with conglomerates, licensing which, ironically, drains anything particularly special *out* of that story, ironically, exposing it as something that may have less staying power in the genre *and* the public consciousness. So having it both ways becomes a lose-lose situation.

I now stand back and receive any and all flames from Harry Potter devotees (I’ve read all the books and seen all the movies, BTW!)