>Thankssssssssssssssss Why did the snake thank Harry here?

>>79688744

Because he (accidentally) used magic to vanish the glass.

>>79688773
This is the first straight answer I have ever seen on /tv/

File: 1453656323224.jpg (1MB, 1588x2862px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1588x2862px

Because it was the end of the snake's scene, so it was finally freed from acting in the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Seriously 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.

File: 1479274885480.jpg (2MB, 1622x2886px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1622x2886px

>>79688744
What you were seeing in this scene was actually a representation of the filmmakers thanking you for being so gullible enough to begin watching one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Seriously 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.

>>79688744

>kiiikkkeeeeesss

woah raimi wtf were you thinking?

>>79688863
Nice

>>79688892
Try harder nxt time

>>79688940
kys yourself

File: thankssssssssssssss doc.jpg (464KB, 801x5107px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 801x5107px

OR PERHAPS THE DIE CAST

>>79688744
It was actually Voldemort, who was inhabiting a snake as a host, but got captured. Harry freeing him allowed him to meet Quirrell and kicked off the entire series.

>>79689054
Nope

>>79689060
"Yes!"

>>79688744
>the earliest sign that harry had part of voldemort in him

>no one picked up on it so the spoop factor was lost on everyone

why is the fanbase so stupid

>>79688863
>>79688892
(You)

Harry was very close to becoming an Obscurus.

>>79688956
Yeah this shit is getting out of hand. Half the threads in the catalog have been posted thousands of times before. Who posts this shit, a bot? We know the people who run these spam bots seem to have infinite proxies, VPNs, captcha filling service, there's money behind this crap. The mods do nothing to curb it. We know the constant steam of these spam threads prevent decent conversational threads that may be a little slow from staying on the catalog for too long. These spam threads discourage conversation and prevent the board from flowing organically. who the fuck pays money to spam a Bhutanese egg painting symposium on a daily basis?

>>79688863
>great gatsby
kek kys

>>79688773
WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE

>>79688857
You would know gaylord

>>79690453
le oldfag edgelord