• How Harry Potter should have ended...
    47 replies, posted
Had this idea for a video awhile back. Finally made it. Feedback appreciated! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHz_LJbMgxE&feature=youtu.be[/media]
Haha, that was great.
To be honest this really is how the series should have ended
"hekh... wanka"
I've always thought, why didn't they do that? And now I know I'm not the only one. Great video!
To fix that plot hole you could just say that it has a limit to one week ago.
[QUOTE=Agent_Wesker;31595475]To fix that plot hole you could just say that it has a limit to one week ago.[/QUOTE] So you would go back in time one week ago and then go back in time one week ago and then go back in time one week ago and then go back in time one week ago and then go back in time one week ago etc.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;31595520]So you would go back in time one week ago and then go back in time one week ago and then go back in time one week ago and then go back in time one week ago and then go back in time one week ago etc.[/QUOTE] Not shown in the video: the 1 trillion turns needed to go back however many hours it would be. That's definitely a wrist workout.
[QUOTE=El JuGaDoR;31598321]Not shown in the video: the 1 trillion turns needed to go back however many hours it would be. That's definitely a wrist workout.[/QUOTE] 499650 turns, roughly
This is why a book or movie shouldn't include something having to do with time travel. They use it to solve some little problem when really it could be used to prevent the problem of the whole book/movie instead
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;31595213]To be honest this really is how the series should have ended[/QUOTE] realize that he can't get back to the present
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;31599225]realize that he can't get back to the present[/QUOTE] does he have a sports almanac
I always thought the whole time spinner thing was a weak plot. Throughout the entire series they could have used it all the time. They used it to prevent a gryphons death yet none of the actual characters
"Wanker!"
She is hawt...
All the timer turners were destroyed after the third book. Including the one Hermione had. The only reason they could go back and save the Hippogryph was because it wouldn't change the future. The future would have otherwise been changed if Harry had gone back and saved his parents. Which the wizarding world could not risk.
[QUOTE=darcy010;31600769]All the timer turners were destroyed after the third book. Including the one Hermione had. The only reason they could go back and save the Hippogryph was because it wouldn't change the future. The future would have otherwise been changed if Harry had gone back and saved his parents. Which the wizarding world could not risk.[/QUOTE] You sir have not taken into the consideration the butterfly effect. Saving the Hippogryph DID change the future as the future had a dead hippogryph and not a live one.
Not really a plot hole, as you can't actually go back in time and [I]change[/I] anything. Both the hippogryph and Sirius were saved the first time around, and the main characters were even helped twice by their future selves. I.e., if they went back in time to kill voldemort when he was young, he would have been dead all along. I.e., if they tried, they would have failed. [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] Harry Potter apperantly uses the destiny principle thing, where nothing in time can be changed. Which means that if you go back in time, you'll either end up failing if you try to change anything, or you'll wind up being the cause of the whole thing. (See Doctor Who: The Fires of Pompeii)
oh god. Harry is Voldemort.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;31601247]Not really a plot hole, as you can't actually go back in time and [I]change[/I] anything. Both the hippogryph and Sirius were saved the first time around, and the main characters were even helped twice by their future selves. I.e., if they went back in time to kill voldemort when he was young, he would have been dead all along. I.e., if they tried, they would have failed. [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] Harry Potter apperantly uses the destiny principle thing, where nothing in time can be changed. Which means that if you go back in time, you'll either end up failing if you try to change anything, or you'll wind up being the cause of the whole thing. (See Doctor Who: The Fires of Pompeii)[/QUOTE] It's still very cheap and much too powerful to be used in only one book. If I recall correctly the book after that they just go "HUEHUEHUE WE KNOCKED OVER THE SHELVES WHERE THEY WERE STORED. Guess we don't have to take them into consideration any more." She shouldn't have introduced them in the first place if she was going to discard them so whimsically. It's not even necessary for the plot at all.
Haha, yeah I agree about the shelf thing, seemed pretty silly that they just had them standing around there. And yeah, perhaps they should just never have been used, but I really liked that scene in the third book. I love all that timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff where someone helps them and they later find it OUT WAS TEMSELVES RFHWFMOMFG. There's just something cool about it.
[QUOTE=Nohj;31601372]oh god. Harry is Voldemort.[/QUOTE] Makes sense. Right after he says "Heh, wanker" he realizes that if he transfigurates himself to look like Tom, he can become immortal and live forever. Predictions, prophecies and dangers doesn't even matter anymore to him because he KNOWS how it all turns out up until the third book, at which point he KNOWS that Harry will travel back in time and therefore be completely out of the equation. So he just has free reigns after that, no Harry to worry about, and even though he was forced to almost kill himself as a baby for the story to work out as it did, he knows that he will be able to return because he trusts Dumbledore who said that Voldemort would come back. So Harry just lives life as Voldemort all the way through childhood, until he recieves the message from Snape, which is the cue for him to start the chain reaction by casting Avada Kedavra on Baby Harry. He almost dies, but he's brought back, has to deal with his own young self, but he doesn't even have to care because he knows just what to do, and then 14 years later Harry travels back in time, after that his only problem is finding a way to get a new body. Yep, makes sense. [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] I actually don't see why you people wanted them disposed. They were kind of useless anyways. I may be wrong, but it seems you people are misunderstanding how it works. Everything that you do when you travel back in time has already happened. So, say you're standing with a time turner, thinking "Imma go back and kill voldemort!" then whatever happens when you do it, has already happened. So by using simple logic, you can already see that you either: 1. Failed 2. Decided not to It also easily explains the "killing your father" paradox. Say you decide to go back and kill your dad before he meets your mother. Again, you know it's going to fail, because if it succeeded, you wouldn't be there, it would be a paradox. If you do attempt it anyways, you're going to end up failing in one way or another, possibly ending up in some strange plot which reveals that you're the reason why your mother and father met each other in the first place. There is no "time manipulation", nothing gets changed when you go back in time. [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] Which means that it is also a stupid idea, no matter how big your army is, to go back and attack Voldemort as a child. You have more chance of success if you charge at him in present time than if you go back in time and do it. Because if you go back in time, you already know the result by observing the present time. If you do it in present time, you don't know what the results will be, so there's a bigger chance of success. [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] This alternative ending could also have worked if Harry's attempt at killing Child Voldy had failed, causing the same backfire for Harry as it did for Voldy. [I](Which might make sense because their souls are linked.)[/I] If that was the case, Voldemort might be able to piece together who the strange teenager who once tried to kill him was, and once he realizes that it was Harry Potter, he would just have to figure out how old he was when he did it, and then wait for Harry to reach that age, because then he knows that he'll travel back in time and kill himself. Maybe Voldemort even set up the time turner thing to make sure that Harry would get an oppertunity to use it. [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] Overthinking it? Maybe, but you're misunderstanding the concept if you think you can go back in time and actually change anything. For example killing yourself is impossible. You will be prevented somehow.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;31603375]Makes sense. Right after he says "Heh, wanker" he realizes that if he transfigurates himself to look like Tom, he can become immortal and live forever. Predictions, prophecies and dangers doesn't even matter anymore to him because he KNOWS how it all turns out up until the third book, at which point he KNOWS that Harry will travel back in time and therefore be completely out of the equation. So he just has free reigns after that, no Harry to worry about, and even though he was forced to almost kill himself as a baby for the story to work out as it did, he knows that he will be able to return because he trusts Dumbledore who said that Voldemort would come back. So Harry just lives life as Voldemort all the way through childhood, until he recieves the message from Snape, which is the cue for him to start the chain reaction by casting Avada Kedavra on Baby Harry. He almost dies, but he's brought back, has to deal with his own young self, but he doesn't even have to care because he knows just what to do, and then 14 years later Harry travels back in time, after that his only problem is finding a way to get a new body. Yep, makes sense. [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] I actually don't see why you people wanted them disposed. They were kind of useless anyways. I may be wrong, but it seems you people are misunderstanding how it works. Everything that you do when you travel back in time has already happened. So, say you're standing with a time turner, thinking "Imma go back and kill voldemort!" then whatever happens when you do it, has already happened. So by using simple logic, you can already see that you either: 1. Failed 2. Decided not to It also easily explains the "killing your father" paradox. Say you decide to go back and kill your dad before he meets your mother. Again, you know it's going to fail, because if it succeeded, you wouldn't be there, it would be a paradox. If you do attempt it anyways, you're going to end up failing in one way or another, possibly ending up in some strange plot which reveals that you're the reason why your mother and father met each other in the first place. There is no "time manipulation", nothing gets changed when you go back in time. [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] Which means that it is also a stupid idea, no matter how big your army is, to go back and attack Voldemort as a child. You have more chance of success if you charge at him in present time than if you go back in time and do it. Because if you go back in time, you already know the result by observing the present time. If you do it in present time, you don't know what the results will be, so there's a bigger chance of success. [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] This alternative ending could also have worked if Harry's attempt at killing Child Voldy had failed, causing the same backfire for Harry as it did for Voldy. [I](Which might make sense because their souls are linked.)[/I] If that was the case, Voldemort might be able to piece together who the strange teenager who once tried to kill him was, and once he realizes that it was Harry Potter, he would just have to figure out how old he was when he did it, and then wait for Harry to reach that age, because then he knows that he'll travel back in time and kill himself. Maybe Voldemort even set up the time turner thing to make sure that Harry would get an oppertunity to use it.[/QUOTE] Also, if you went back in time and tried to kill an 11 year old orphan, I think you'd end up going to Azkaban for a long time.
Well, did Tom (Actually Harry in disguise) end up in Azkaban? If not, then there's no risk of that. Nope, he didn't, so mission accomplished before he even tried. Again, nothing can change in the past. Everything is set in stone, there's just some things we don't know about. For example in book 3, we think that the hippogryph dies, but it never actually dies, it was saved all along because of the time traveling. There's no changing the past, it all happened in the first place. Similarly, if the "Harry is Voldemort" alternative ending was true, then everything would happen exactly as it did all the way up to near the end of book 3, and Tom would have been Harry in disguise all along.
But if he travelled back in time and killed Voldemort, that means Voldemort never happened, so he would have never needed to kill Voldemort. Alternatively, his timeline still somehow works like that and he just created a seperate timeline where Voldemort didn't happen.
Yes, because Voldemort would never have happened, he has to either take on the role himself, or his attempt would have to fail. There is no seperate timeline. If he went back in time and killed Voldemort, the events wouldn't have happened like they did, and Harry wouldn't go back in time, therefore that simply doesn't work, which is why he [B]has to fail.[/B] Or he has to take over Tom's life completely. As long as everything happens as it seemingly happened last time, it can work. If it doesn't happen the same way, it's impossible.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;31605050]Yes, because Voldemort would never have happened, he has to either take on the role himself, or his attempt would have to fail. There is no seperate timeline. If he went back in time and killed Voldemort, the events wouldn't have happened like they did, and Harry wouldn't go back in time, therefore that simply doesn't work, which is why he [B]has to fail.[/B] Or he has to take over Tom's life completely. As long as everything happens as it seemingly happened last time, it can work. If it doesn't happen the same way, it's impossible.[/QUOTE] How could he fail? The only thing preventing him from succeeding is the paradox, and unless fate is sentient there is nothing physically preventing him. And if he were to take over the role, he could act differently. I'd imagine that in case of a paradox, he'd be transported to where the time travel took place first. Although that sounds technically unlikely.
Because it's a paradox, it can't happen. Because if it did, he would never get into the situation in the first place. It kinda cancels itself out. It is mindfuck, how could he fail? Well he could trip over a rock, maybe he doesn't hit, maybe he takes a wrong turn on his way there. Anything, he just cannot succeed because otherwise it would not happen. What's that movie which predicts people's deaths? Like it had a number and a date. It's the same principle which explores concepts like fate/destiny and time. In that movie, if I remember correctly, it works in the way that if you're on that list, as in, if the letter says 214 people will die tomorrow, then 214 people will die tomorrow, no matter what the fuck you do. If you, in desperation, take everyone and put them in a tiny bunker, seperate them from each other in tiny rooms each and sedate them - then the roof will cave in and crush 214 of them, or the sedative you used will end up killing 214 of them. Way I see it, in the Harry Potter universe, going back in time does not make you free to change things, in fact you become even more constricted [I](or at least you will percieve being more constricted)[/I] as you will feel like you're being pulled by destiny, or forced to do certain things. In the book, Harry is forced to throw a rock, and he's also forced to use the Patronus spell. You could say; what if he chose not to? Well, then the dementors would have given him the Kiss, and he would never have traveled back in time, thus creating a paradox. Because of that, the Patronus spell has to be cast. It has to be cast because it has already happened. The past is already set in stone. The reason why you would percieve being constricted in the past, but not in the present time, is because when you're in the past, you already have an idea of what will happen. (Of course, you don't know everything, Harry, for example, did not know that it was himself that cast the patronus. And similarly, nobody except Harry himself would know that Voldemort was in fact Harry himself) At least in the Harry Potter universe, time is a single entity it seems. You don't have multiple timelines or stuff like that, everything happens in the same timeline, and what has happened before is completely set in stone. So yes, the paradox would be responsible for his failure. Just like the paradox was responsible for Harry succeeding when he had to cast the Patronus. [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] "[i]And then it hit him - he understood. He hadn't seen his father - he had seen[/i] himself[i] - Harry flung himself out from behind the bush and pulled out his wang. 'EXPECTO PATRONUM!' he yelled. And out of the end of his wang burst, not a shapeless cloud of mist, but a blinding, dazzling, silver animal. [...] 'Did anyone see you?' 'Yes, haven't you been listening?[/i] I[i] saw me but I thought I was my dad! It's OK!' 'Harry, I can't believe it - you conjured up a Patronus that drove away all those Dementors! That's very, [/i]very [i] advanced magic ...' 'I knew I could do it this time,' said Harry, 'because I'd already done it ... Does that make sense?'[/i] We don't get it explicitly explained, but the way I understand it, it's simply not possible to change the course of history. If it happened the first time, it will happen regardless of what you do when you go back in time. Which means, was Voldemort alive before you went back many years to kill him? If yes, then you've already failed. The only reason why there's "rules" about not getting seen, is because it actually affects the present time - before you go back in time to do it. As explained in the book, if you went back in time and barged into your own room naked, you'd not change history, you'd simply realize who that strange fucker was 2 months back. [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Talishmar;31605698]How could he fail? The only thing preventing him from succeeding is the paradox, and unless fate is sentient there is nothing physically preventing him.[/QUOTE] See my example with that movie. Nothing you do can stop the prediction from being fulfilled. If you go out of your house to escape the fires, a plane will crash down on you; if you stay inside, you'll burn. If you do something completely different like digging yourself down and hiding in a god damned Vault, you'll be eaten by mutants. So does that mean fate is sentient? Maybe. Or maybe it just means that the past, present and future are already set in stone. After all, do you really have a choice? Is it really a choice when you decide which course of action you will take? You could say it doesn't make any sense that that the world would change it's own actions based on what choice you make. But you only have one shot. So perhaps only 1 of them actually did happen, you just never really had a choice. You could have stayed inside the house and the fires would have gone out. The Vault is safe, but you chose to go outside, and thus you got hit by a plane. There's no redoing that. This is all just thought experimenting of course. But it's the only thing that makes sense for me in the Harry Potter universe. If time is set in stone from the get go, that explains why the time turners are not all that dangerous, only extremely confusing. [QUOTE]And if he were to take over the role, he could act differently.[/QUOTE] Well how do we know that he [I]didn't[/I]? After all, we never do get to hear EVERYTHING that Voldemort does. So maybe he did act "differently" [I](even though there would be no "differently", as it would always have been him taking over the role)[/I]
So many explanations! This is why I hate time travel sometimes
It's why I love it so much.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.