As the first notes of film composer John Williams’s famous score trickled from the screen, I was, for a moment, transported back to my high school years, when I played sick to lay in my bunkbed all day, the sixth “Harry Potter” book in hand. It’s a good feeling, remembering those childhood moments. Sadly, the nostalgia soon passes. As the movie starts, a realization blossoms over me: Every part of the Potter universe I love comes from the books, not the movies.

And honestly, why would anyone want to re-watch “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone?” There are millions of reasons to delve back into the books. The Potter universe is idyllic (though admittedly less so as it ages), but formulaic as well. It’s, quite literally, like going back to school. You meet old friends (and foes), talk to your favorite teachers and go through a series of similar events. The books were successful because they put intimately likeable (and oftentimes relatable) characters through the hoops of normal high school — sports, studies, relationship problems, gossip and in more fantastical cases, trolls. We like things that are familiar, and the books not only reflect our own childhoods, but they also end up sharing some common tropes with each other. It’s a comfort food: When you read “Harry Potter,” you become a student at Hogwarts, a close friend of Harry’s, who shares in his successes and cries at his failures — the movies simply don’t have this magic, though.

I don’t presume to understand why the novels possess this unique skill. Perhaps it’s because of the time commitment of a book. You spend more time in the pages than in front of the movie screen, and thus develop a deeper connection with the characters. Or, maybe it’s because in the book, the characters take form in the mind, making them closer to you because they are, in a sense, inside you. A simpler (and less psychological) answer might be that J.K. Rowling’s strongest competence as an author comes from her quick and witty dialogue, which engages as powerfully as any writer I’ve read, yet doesn’t translate perfectly to the screen.

Of course, an adaptation not living up to its source material doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t good — I’m sure most people would agree that the “Harry Potter” movies are less memorable than the books, and that doesn’t mean anything when determining the quality of the films. My essential point is that without the books, the movies are nothing.

“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” and all the following films survived because they were “events,” not because they offered anything substantial. It was safe, charming and corporate. Chris Columbus (“The Goonies”) directed like he didn’t want to piss anyone off. The story and actors hit their points competently, and the audience appreciated the things they’ve seen before.

After finishing the first film, I realized that I never needed to watch any of them again. It was nice to live through the wildness and the fever of the movies hitting theaters, but it isn’t something worth showing anyone ever again. I like movies that result in deeper debates than “I wonder why they left out Peeves?”

—MATT EASTON

***

Eleven years? Has it really been almost 11 years? It seems that only yesterday, my ten-year-old self donned her favorite hot pink Harry Potter hoodie from the now-extinct Warner Bros. store at Somerset Mall and skipped off to the theater to see “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.” Nothing will ever compare to experiencing “Harry Potter” for the first time, but every time I watch the film, I am transported back to that very first viewing and the palpable excitement in the air.

It’s that immersive nostalgia that makes “Sorcerer’s Stone” such a joy to watch years later. Seeing Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint as adorable children will never fail to tug at my heartstrings, since I’ve grown up with them as the films released and their careers evolved.