How many scenes in the Harry Potter films meet the following criteria
>They don't have Harry on screen
>He isn't the subject of the conversation
I was thinking about it recently; yes, he is the main character but for 8 films it's always about him.
Picture unrelated.
because he's the chosen one
He is the key
The books are almost always from his point of view
What would be the point? The Harry Potter series is about Harry Potter. You could have a bunch of scenes with Ron interacting with his family if you wanted to, but it wouldn't improve the movies.
How many scenes aren't focused on the main character?
Well, seeing as the films aren't unfocused pieces of shit that drag on pointlessly for hours, not many
>>70089338
But for 8 films it's nothing BUT him... You'd figure there would be a bit here and there where Harry was taking a shit.
>>70089233
They're based from his perspective, you daft twat.
>>70089233
>cinemsassacrefans_vs_pattonoswalt.gif
>>70089378
The main story is centered on him, they're not going to introduce a new main character 6 books in, you're complaining over nothing either to troll or cause you're retarded and have some free time and internet connection to argue over nothing
>>70089399
What the fuck are you talking about
>>70089378
The movie would suffer if you stuffed in unnecessary scenes that don't advance the plot and are only there to expand on secondary and tertiary characters.
See: The Room
I'm sure there is a prologue/expository scene or two somewhere in the films
Who cares? it's one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
>>70089233
Dumbledore talking to young Voldemort
>>70089925
(You)
