|
|
| Author |
Message |
pottergirl66
Joined: Mar 1, 2008
Location: somewhere with nathan. . .
Posts: 1874
|
 Posted: April 18, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: Time Turner? |
|
|
ok in POA, harry is saved by himself, then harry saves himself. what
happens to the harry that harry saved. wouldn't the cycle of being
saved - then saving just continue and continue. that always has confused
me  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GinnyX
Joined: May 6, 2007
Location: I'm in a New York state of mind.
Posts: 22298
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: |
GinnyX
Report this post
| Items with prefix * are permanent. | Close |
|
|
I understand it, but I can't exclain it because it makes my brain hurt. It is like a cycle, but it is a cycle that continues. And since the Harry that saves the firt harry is the same harry, the cycle sort-of ends for one of them....
I can't explain it well at all. 
_________________
^courtesy of Arabella |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vandermorph
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Location: In Heaven, Kickin back with Tonks
Posts: 3212
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well here we go i will TRY to explain it. i have thought of this also. The Harry that was mistaken for JAMES, saves Harry on the other side of the lake with a patronus. As he is the LATER Harry, he continues on in life. Now the one that was saved is the hard one to explain. My theory is that once he reaches the stage of his life where he saves himself he just fades from exsistence, allowing the Older harry to continue his life unnafected. OR the other Harry is still out there similar to the end of Austin Powers two... but that is not likely.
_________________
Wand: 10' Rowan with Phoenix feather core
I LOVE TONKS *SIGH*
http://potter.ipbfree.com/index.php?act=idx , new look!! Join Now, Its free |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GinnyX
Joined: May 6, 2007
Location: I'm in a New York state of mind.
Posts: 22298
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 2:47 am Post subject: |
GinnyX
Report this post
| Items with prefix * are permanent. | Close |
|
|
The problem I have explaining this, is that no matter how I try to explain it, someone yells at me that there is only one Harry. Der. But how else do I explain it without using two different Harrys? (Harries?  )
_________________
^courtesy of Arabella |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vandermorph
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Location: In Heaven, Kickin back with Tonks
Posts: 3212
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GinnyX wrote: |
| The problem I have explaining this, is that no matter how I try to explain it, someone yells at me that there is only one Harry. Der. But how else do I explain it without using two different Harrys? (Harries? ) |
Say Harry James leave out the slash because James is Harrys middle name.
*Yells* There is only ONE HARRY!!!
*Whispers* But there is two timeframes *Winks*
Its my favorite HP book lol
_________________
Wand: 10' Rowan with Phoenix feather core
I LOVE TONKS *SIGH*
http://potter.ipbfree.com/index.php?act=idx , new look!! Join Now, Its free |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ginevra Malenki
Joined: Feb 16, 2008
Location: Going Crazy =)
Posts: 6647
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's definitly something that you kind of half to get yourself, it's a hard thing to explain when you get to the Harry who gets saved saving himself on the other side of the lake. 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bery26
Joined: Dec 21, 2007
Location: with harry in the room of requirements ;)
Posts: 17940
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what i really wanna know about the time turner thingy is the following:
the trio never saw buckbeak dying right? because in that case it would be wrong, cause buckbeak never died, harry and hermy saved him
_________________
You are up there! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ginevra Malenki
Joined: Feb 16, 2008
Location: Going Crazy =)
Posts: 6647
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bery26 wrote: |
what i really wanna know about the time turner thingy is the following:
the trio never saw buckbeak dying right? because in that case it would be wrong, cause buckbeak never died, harry and hermy saved him |
Well they would have seen him die but he didn't really die, I guess. They changed 'history' by saving buckbeak and that one move is the reason Sirius lived longer.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zengrenouille
Joined: Aug 1, 2007
Location: Sharon, PA
Posts: 9059
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ginevra Malenki wrote: |
| bery26 wrote: |
what i really wanna know about the time turner thingy is the following:
the trio never saw buckbeak dying right? because in that case it would be wrong, cause buckbeak never died, harry and hermy saved him |
Well they would have seen him die but he didn't really die, I guess. They changed 'history' by saving buckbeak and that one move is the reason Sirius lived longer. |
They didn't actually change history, though, because time happens in a straight line. What happend that first time that Harry experienced it happened exactly the same way the second time that he experienced it.
Buckbeak was not killed the first time around. Harry, Hermione, and Ron just thought that he died since they didn't see what really happened.
The old and new Harry and Hermione neither continue nor cease to exist. They are just physical beings sort of stuck in time. As Ginny said, it's very hard to explain suchan abstract idea as time in the sense that it needs to be explained here.
_________________
 
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ginevra Malenki
Joined: Feb 16, 2008
Location: Going Crazy =)
Posts: 6647
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They changed time, a little, because if they hadn't gone back Sirius wouldn't have lived and that would have changed everything.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vandermorph
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Location: In Heaven, Kickin back with Tonks
Posts: 3212
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ginevra Malenki wrote: |
| They changed time, a little, because if they hadn't gone back Sirius wouldn't have lived and that would have changed everything. |
Not really, when they went down to Hagrids Hut for the first time, thier future selves were already at work, saving Buckbeak and Sirius, they just had to wait for the right moments in time.
As for they never saw Buckbeak die... it was because he was NEVER executed. Thier future selves had already saved Buckbeak and when they heard the THUD it was the Executioner swinging his Axe into the post. And Hagrid was crying for joy, not sadness.
This is hard to explain but i think i uderstand it. It trying to make OTHER people understand that is the hard part.
_________________
Wand: 10' Rowan with Phoenix feather core
I LOVE TONKS *SIGH*
http://potter.ipbfree.com/index.php?act=idx , new look!! Join Now, Its free |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ginevra Malenki
Joined: Feb 16, 2008
Location: Going Crazy =)
Posts: 6647
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But the future selves wouldn't have even been there if they hadn't used the time-turner. This is why the time-tuner is so friggin' confusing to explain its complicated.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vandermorph
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Location: In Heaven, Kickin back with Tonks
Posts: 3212
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But if what you are saying is right... then everytime Fred and George looked at the map in PoA they would have seen alot of Hermiones... so what you are saying isnt feasible really... I just dont think the map registers people from other time frames.
_________________
Wand: 10' Rowan with Phoenix feather core
I LOVE TONKS *SIGH*
http://potter.ipbfree.com/index.php?act=idx , new look!! Join Now, Its free |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ginevra Malenki
Joined: Feb 16, 2008
Location: Going Crazy =)
Posts: 6647
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The map would have never shown two of them
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zengrenouille
Joined: Aug 1, 2007
Location: Sharon, PA
Posts: 9059
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vandermorph wrote: |
| But if what you are saying is right... then everytime Fred and George looked at the map in PoA they would have seen alot of Hermiones... so what you are saying isnt feasible really... I just dont think the map registers people from other time frames. |
Think about it this way. If the future Harry wasn't there the first time around when the demeantors came after Harry and Sirius, then Harry would never have made it to the future to begin with. It was Harry who sent the patronus to save them.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bery26
Joined: Dec 21, 2007
Location: with harry in the room of requirements ;)
Posts: 17940
|
| Posted: April 19, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
They didn't actually change history, though, because time happens in a straight line. What happend that first time that Harry experienced it happened exactly the same way the second time that he experienced it.
Buckbeak was not killed the first time around. Harry, Hermione, and Ron just thought that he died since they didn't see what really happened. |
thats exactly what i thought cause in the books they never actually see it, scabbers escapes from ron's hands at that moment so they are distracted
so this just shows yet another movie mistake lol
_________________
You are up there! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kwidditch
Joined: Feb 7, 2008
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: April 21, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The first Harry disappears when he travels to the past and becomes the second Harry.
_________________
"It’s the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing more." -- Albus Dumbledore |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lozinja
Joined: Nov 4, 2007
Location: Aussie Land
Posts: 4113
|
| Posted: April 21, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ok about the cycle thing:
harry is saved, then he goes back in time and saves himself. after that time just goes on. yes it is like a continuous cycle but it doesn't keep happening because it only really happened once. if you think about the way time works what happened in the past is in the past. so harry only saved himself once, but the way it happens is sort of like a cycle.
| Quote: |
| so this just shows yet another movie mistake lol |
it wasn't a movie mistake. in the movie when you see the exicutioner kill buckbeak he's not actually killing him. the future harry and hermione have already saved buckbeak and he is just chopping a pumpkin, but you don't know that until you see it after harry and hermione go back and save buckbeak.
_________________
DON'T EAT THE DAISIES |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bery26
Joined: Dec 21, 2007
Location: with harry in the room of requirements ;)
Posts: 17940
|
| Posted: April 22, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ no, in the movies it shows clearly how the trio see buckbeak's decapitation, you should check out that part again
_________________
You are up there! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GinnyX
Joined: May 6, 2007
Location: I'm in a New York state of mind.
Posts: 22298
|
| Posted: April 22, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: |
GinnyX
Report this post
| Items with prefix * are permanent. | Close |
|
|
| bery26 wrote: |
| ^ no, in the movies it shows clearly how the trio see buckbeak's decapitation, you should check out that part again |
Nope, they don't clearly see it. They see the ax raised, then lowered. But they don't see the actual decapitation.
_________________
^courtesy of Arabella |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zengrenouille
Joined: Aug 1, 2007
Location: Sharon, PA
Posts: 9059
|
| Posted: April 22, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GinnyX wrote: |
| bery26 wrote: |
| ^ no, in the movies it shows clearly how the trio see buckbeak's decapitation, you should check out that part again |
Nope, they don't clearly see it. They see the ax raised, then lowered. But they don't see the actual decapitation. |
It's definately what Gin said. They saw the axe raise. The future HArry and Hermione were out there the first time around in the movie. Otherwise, there would have been no one to throw the rocks into Hagrid's huts. They wouldn't have just flown in with a gust of wind.
There is something that also confused me about that bit.
When Hermione in the future chucked them, Harry in the future grabbed his head, even though the rock hit the past Harry. Then he saw, "That hurt." Could the future Harry feel the pain, too. It seemed like it.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GinnyX
Joined: May 6, 2007
Location: I'm in a New York state of mind.
Posts: 22298
|
| Posted: April 22, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
GinnyX
Report this post
| Items with prefix * are permanent. | Close |
|
|
| zengrenouille wrote: |
When Hermione in the future chucked them, Harry in the future grabbed his head, even though the rock hit the past Harry. Then he saw, "That hurt." Could the future Harry feel the pain, too. It seemed like it. |
I guess so. That part wasn't in the book, though... so I'm not gong to dwell on it, lol.
_________________
^courtesy of Arabella |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zengrenouille
Joined: Aug 1, 2007
Location: Sharon, PA
Posts: 9059
|
| Posted: April 22, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GinnyX wrote: |
| zengrenouille wrote: |
When Hermione in the future chucked them, Harry in the future grabbed his head, even though the rock hit the past Harry. Then he saw, "That hurt." Could the future Harry feel the pain, too. It seemed like it. |
I guess so. That part wasn't in the book, though... so I'm not gong to dwell on it, lol. |
I know it wasn't in the books, but I still want to know. Actually, Hermione throwing those stones was one of the things that I liked in the movies.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GinnyX
Joined: May 6, 2007
Location: I'm in a New York state of mind.
Posts: 22298
|
| Posted: April 22, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: |
GinnyX
Report this post
| Items with prefix * are permanent. | Close |
|
|
| zengrenouille wrote: |
| GinnyX wrote: |
| zengrenouille wrote: |
When Hermione in the future chucked them, Harry in the future grabbed his head, even though the rock hit the past Harry. Then he saw, "That hurt." Could the future Harry feel the pain, too. It seemed like it. |
I guess so. That part wasn't in the book, though... so I'm not gong to dwell on it, lol. |
I know it wasn't in the books, but I still want to know. Actually, Hermione throwing those stones was one of the things that I liked in the movies. |
yeah, that was a really cool idea. One of the few changes I liked in the films, lol.
_________________
| |
Rules
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
