Books/films where the main character contributes nothing to the plot

goose1

Originally inspired from The Big Bang Theory where Amy ruins Raiders of the Lost Ark for Sheldon by pointing out that Indiana Jones has no actual bearing on the outcome of the plot.

Now while doing some extremely highbrow re-reading of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone I realised that Harry also has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of that book/film! Yeah, sure, Voldemort couldn't kill him as a baby but if he had never gone to Hogwarts, never found out about the Philosopher's Stone, never tried to track it down, Voldemort still couldn't have come back to power!

In fact, Harry actually made the situation MORE dangerous as without him finding Quirrell looking in the mirror of Erised, Quirrell/Voldemort never could have got the stone!

Rant over.

Any other films/books where the presence of the main character ultimately makes no difference to the outcome of the plot?

BoJack Horseman

Gloin.... From The Hobbit trilogy.

Eye candy, but adds nothing to the plot.

Akrasia

Titanic

Birneybau

The Bible.

The_Valeyard

Tom Cruise, War of the Worlds

The_Valeyard

Birneybau wrote: »

The Bible.

Well, the New Testament would be a lot shorter without that Jesus guy, he is kinda a main character.

Kazooie

Season 2 of true detective. None of the main characters mattered in the end. It was a tough watch I tells ya.

prettyrestless

All of the final destination films. They die anyway. And after the initial event, the protagonist trying to warn others of their impending doom normally gets them killed sooner.

bnt

Who says the the main character in a book must actively contribute to the plot? They can also act as the catalyst for events outside their control.

The first example that comes to mind is the titular character of Voltaire's Candide: he doesn't actually do much, but a helluva lot of stuff happens to him and the people he encounters on his journey.

Another one is Katniss in The Hunger Games books and movies. Yes, she's a good fighter, but after taking the decision to step in for her little sister at the very beginning, she's pretty much a figurehead who gets carried along on a wave of popular rebellion.

Until the very end of the series, that is, when she sees what's reallly happening and decides to stop it.

5rtytry56

Sven Hassel himself in all Sven Hassel novels. He's immaterial to the outcome of the situation - he just survives until the next battle the nazis loose. In fact Josef Porta, "Tiny" Cruezfelt and the "Old Man" risk their own necks time and time again to save Sven's ass.

goose1

I get your point but when their existence doesn't actually effect events of the plot in ANY way surely that's usually a plot hole?!

Junkyard Tom

Akrasia wrote: »

Titanic

Titanic strikes an iceberg and sinks!

:eek:

Mr. CooL ICE

Walter Mitty

Sheep Lover

Any Nicolas Cage film..

Banjo String

The wizard of Oz.

The wizard only had a five minute appearance ffs.

SEPT 23 1989

Banjo String wrote: »

The wizard of Oz.

The wizard only had a five minute appearance ffs.

did he not tell that tramp to click her ruby slippers to get home?

Banjo String

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

did he not tell that tramp to click her ruby slippers to get home?

I don't think he even had that tiny part.

Wasn't that the good witch?

5rtytry56

Anakin Skywalker as a child in Star Wars Episode 1.

The Backwards Man

Biographies aside, you could argue that all major characters have no effect on the plot. A story's a story, doesn't matter who's in it.

Conall Cernach

5rtytry56 wrote: »

Anakin Skywalker as a child in Star Wars Episode 1.

He destroyed the droid ship that ended up deactivating their army.

Greyfox

goose1 wrote: »

Now while doing some extremely highbrow re-reading of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone I realised that Harry also has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of that book/film! Yeah, sure, Voldemort couldn't kill him as a baby but if he had never gone to Hogwarts, never found out about the Philosopher's Stone, never tried to track it down, Voldemort still couldn't have come back to power!

In fact, Harry actually made the situation MORE dangerous as without him finding Quirrell looking in the mirror of Erised, Quirrell/Voldemort never could have got the stone!

This is a very bad example. If Harry wasn't in Hogwarts chances are Quirrel would of got his hands on the stone in a slightly different way and Voldemort would return. Also Voldemorts first attempt to return is only part of the plot, its more about Harrys journey of learning that he's not a weirdo, theirs actually people in the world that dont hate him and who he is and how his parents really died, its more of a setting the world up story. The fact is Voldemort was always going to return and once he did he was always going to try to kill Harry even if he didnt go to Hogwarts so Harry and voldemorts destinys were always tied to each other even in the first book

Turtyturd

Greyfox wrote: »

This is a very bad example. If Harry wasn't in Hogwarts chances are Quirrel would of got his hands on the stone in a slightly different way and Voldemort would return. Also Voldemorts first attempt to return is only part of the plot, its more about Harrys journey of learning that he's not a weirdo, theirs actually people in the world that dont hate him and who he is and how his parents really died, its more of a setting the world up story. The fact is Voldemort was always going to return and once he did he was always going to try to kill Harry even if he didnt go to Hogwarts so Harry and voldemorts destinys were always tied to each other even in the first book

It's also a bad example for listing several ways he contributed to the plot.

Conor Bourke

Trent

bnt

5rtytry56 wrote: »

Sven Hassel himself in all Sven Hassel novels. He's immaterial to the outcome of the situation - he just survives until the next battle the nazis loose. In fact Josef Porta, "Tiny" Cruezfelt and the "Old Man" risk their own necks time and time again to save Sven's ass.

Ah, but then Sven is the Narrator, but not a main character! I remember he was the best at throwing grenades, but in his telling he sometimes messed that up badly.

As for that comment about the Wizard of Oz: he wasn't a main character, either. The book and film were about the search for him, not about him. Ditto for the titluar whale in Moby Dick, while Shakespeare's Julius Caesar was about his assassins, not him: the name might be on the title, but that doesn't make him the main character.

goose1

Oh yeah, the greater Harry-finding-himself plot isn't lost on me and of course I love it!

But ignore future books - in this book Harry DOES take it upon himself to track down the potential robber of the philosopher's stone...that's what the majority of the book centres around.

HOW could Quirrell get the stone without Harry, Dumbledore's enchantment in mind???

Le Surge Eyed Amant

The book is about Harry Potter, hint is in the name. Yeah, I'd say he contributed a fair bit alright.

Humpty Dumpty.

That old Egg only got his own nursery rhyme in one of the worlds first spin offs

One eyed Jack

Macbeth.

He's nothing more than a puppet for Lady Macbeth and the three witches.

Yellowblackbird

If Indiana Jones wasn't there when they opened the arc then the americans wouldn't have got the arc.

Either there would have been other nazis on the island not present during the opening who would have taken it. Or it would have sat there. Probably redeemed by nazis sent to find out what happened.

Zaph

Alaskimo-cake wrote: »

Trent

You take that back! I will not tolerate any criticism of Trent. :mad:

Yellowblackbird

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

If Indiana Jones wasn't there when they opened the arc then the americans wouldn't have got the arc.

Either there would have been other nazis on the island not present during the opening who would have taken it. Or it would have sat there. Probably redeemed by nazis sent to find out what happened.

Marion would also likely be dead.