THE most annoying plot hole - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Discussion

[–] mikebryner 8 years ago

The existence of, and non-use of, a time turner is the biggest plot-hole in the entire series. It could have solved so many problems but wasn't even tried.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

Oh yeah, of course. It's a cool series, and I loved it growing up. But it has plot holes like crazy. Like, couldn't Dumbledore have prevented Voldemort from coming back by simply coming back in time for an hour?

reply

[–] mcp-69798 8 years ago

It's not a plot hole if you realize the time travel theory used in the movie is the Predestination Paradox. Harry and Hermione aren't changing anything when they travel to the past, they're just experiencing the same event from a different perspective. Dumbledore knows this and gives them the turner because the loop needs to be completed.

H&H obviously only realize this at the end, but even when they think they can change the past, it makes perfect sense that they want to avoid themselves. Hermione and Harry don't remember meeting their future selves, and changing that could break causality and erase the reason to use the time turner in the first place.

Furthermore, since the timeline is fixed and the past can't be changed, the time turner couldn't be used to prevent events like the death of Harry's parents or the return of Voldemort. No plot hole.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

That's just a paradox that comes with every time travel story. They're not just experiencing the event, they're a part of it, and therefore are able to change it. Once they realize they're affecting the original events (another paradox btw), they could go back in time again and fill the original H&H on what to do.

And on the Voldemort thing, why couldn't Dumbledore go back once he learned the news about the Potters and stop Voldemort? "The timeline is fixed is not a valid answer"

reply

[–] mcp-69798 8 years ago

That's just a paradox that comes with every time travel story.

No, because not all time travel stories follow the same model/theory of how TT works. In Back to the Future or Looper, the past can be changed. In 12 Monkeys, the first Terminator movie, Timecrimes, Predestination, Prisoner of Azkaban, etc there is a single, fixed timeline and any time travel to the past has "always" been part of history.

They're not just experiencing the event, they're a part of it, and therefore are able to change it.

Of course they're part of it (that's what experiencing an event means), from two different perspectives. However they don't change anything, do they? Hermione is hit with a small stone by her older self, before she even uses the time turner to go back to that moment. If they could change the past, H&H would have first experienced something different, like Buckbeak actually dying and without any interference from their older selves.

Forget how you think time travel should work in a movie, what matters is the model used by the author. The fixed timeline/predestination paradox model is as valid as the mutable timeline model, the multiverse theory, etc. Since time travel is likely impossible and only exists in fiction, any theory is valid as long as it's consistent within its own rules.

And on the Voldemort thing, why couldn't Dumbledore go back once he learned the news about the Potters and stop Voldemort? "The timeline is fixed is not a valid answer"

It is a perfectly valid answer and solves this supposed "plot hole". And everything that happens in the movie supports this theory 100%.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

It is a perfectly valid answer and solves this supposed "plot hole"

So "that's how it is" is your answer? Explain to me then, what if Dumbledore would have chosen to go back and set up a trap for Voldemort? The past is only fixed, because the characters don't think "hey, what if I did that?". There is NOTHING that prevents them from altering the past. There's NOTHING preventing H&H from teaming up with past H&H, nothing at all. The book itself suggests that it IS a chance, but they don't do it because of that "can't meet your past self" *beep* All of it hinges on that premise, which is just stupid. The past is only fixed because none of them think of changing it, there are no laws of physics that fix it, just the character's (writer's) own lack of imagination.

reply

[–] JediColt 8 years ago

I don't think you are following what MCP is saying. He isn't saying that is how it is, he's saying that is how the laws of time travel work in the Potter universe. No different than saying why don't they apparate when you can't apparate in Hogwarts grounds.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

There's an explanation as to why it's impossible to apparate in Hogwarts. It's a valid rule. This time travel rule is not. There's nothing stopping the characters but their own lack of imagination. The only limitation the characters have to change the past is that "don't meet yourself" thing, and as I proven before, it's bs in this case.

About Dumbledore, it's Rowling's fault, nothing more. I understand that that's how time travel works in this universe, I get that. But that doesn't mean that it makes sense or is supported by any kind of logic other than "that's the way the author wants it".

reply

[–] JediColt 8 years ago

Then we just disagree on what logic is. To me this time travel explanation is MUCH more logical than Back to the Future or Bill & Teds.

The past has already occurred INCLUDING whatever was done by anyone who time travelled to the past. So if Harry and Hermione had tried to confront themselves and team up we would have seen that attempt back when they were in Hagrid's hut.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

Oh really, then where's the first timeline where the past was set? Paradox.
If you can go to the past, you're physically there, then you can mess with it. Simple as that. And if what holds the past together is the character's own lack of imagination and common sense, then it's a plot hole.

Also, explain to me then the Dumbledore Voldemort situation. Why didn't Dumbledore go back in time and set Voldemort up? Why didn't H&H meet with past H&H? Because of that stupid rule. That's why it is a plothole. Because the whole time travel logic of this universe is tied to the most fragile thread.

reply

[–] mcp-69798 8 years ago

Exactly. Someone gets it.

"You're not thinking 4th dimensionally!"

reply

[–] mcp-69798 8 years ago

So "that's how it is" is your answer?

Well, no. Did you even read my posts?

Explain to me then, what if Dumbledore would have chosen to go back and set up a trap for Voldemort? The past is only fixed, because the characters don't think "hey, what if I did that?". There is NOTHING that prevents them from altering the past. There's NOTHING preventing H&H from teaming up with past H&H, nothing at all. The book itself suggests that it IS a chance, but they don't do it because of that "can't meet your past self" *beep* All of it hinges on that premise, which is just stupid. The past is only fixed because none of them think of changing it, there are no laws of physics that fix it, just the character's (writer's) own lack of imagination.

In a fixed timeline model, it doesn't matter what the characters choose to do or if they think "what if I did that?". Of course there is nothing preventing Harry and Hermione from teaming up with their past selves, they're free to do whatever they want. And their decision is to not meet their other selves. Period. IF they had decided to team up, the events of the movie would have been different.

This model follows the Novikov self-consistency principle. Ever heard about it? It's interesting ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

"The only type of causality violation that the authors would find unacceptable is that embodied in the science-fiction concept of going backward in time and killing one's younger self ("changing the past"). Some years ago one of us (Novikov10) briefly considered the possibility that CTCs might exist and argued that they cannot entail this type of causality violation: Events on a CTC are already guaranteed to be self-consistent, Novikov argued; they influence each other around a closed curve in a self-adjusted, cyclical, self-consistent way. The other authors recently have arrived at the same viewpoint.

We shall embody this viewpoint in a principle of self-consistency, which states that the only solutions to the laws of physics that can occur locally in the real Universe are those which are globally self-consistent. This principle allows one to build a local solution to the equations of physics only if that local solution can be extended to a part of a (not necessarily unique) global solution, which is well defined throughout the nonsingular regions of the space-time."

Oh really, then where's the first timeline where the past was set? Paradox.

There is no "first timeline". It's a paradox because the origin of causally-looped events can't be determined, but being able to change the past potentially causes more paradoxes (kill your grandfather, erase the reason to travel back in the first place, etc. Time travel to the past will always cause paradoxes one way or another, basically).

Many great time travel movies use this model: Terminator 1, 12 Monkeys, Timecrimes, Predestination... Prisoner of Azkaban clearly uses it too. I didn't create the theory, I'm merely explaining it. You don't like this time travel model, fine, but don't say it creates a plot hole ;)

"You're not thinking 4th dimensionally!"

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

Te plot hole is there, whether you like it or not. Condescend all you want ( ";)" seriously? What kind of douche uses that?) But it is there. All the *beep* in the book could've been solved easily if they would have broken that rule. I understand that the timeline is fixed, why is it fixed? Because of the character's choices. What is the foundation of the character's stupid ass choice? that *beep* "don't meet yourself" rule. It's a weak reason for the characters to base their actions on, and it's only there so book #4 can happen. Ergo, plot hole.

reply

[–] mcp-69798 8 years ago

It's not a plot hole, but whatever, we're going in circles and we're not going to convince each other. Besides I wasn't being condescending, sorry if you interpreted it that way.

"You're not thinking 4th dimensionally!"

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

I was about to comment the same thing. We're going in circles. The plot hole is there, I'm sorry you can't see it, but it is there. Anyway, whatever, I'm done here.

reply

[–] AndrewGS 8 years ago

I think the thematic explanation is just that Dumbledore doesn't think he or Harry should "play God" in altering the timeline, that some powers are too much for people to use, and that if they did the ability to change the past would somehow be discovered and a lot more people, both good and bad, would use it and the situation would be even worse than what was initially prevented.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

Well, seeing what Voldemort has done, it seems aproppiate to play god. Even so, that doesn't justify that H&H didn't even have the idea of teaming up with their past selves.

reply

[–] Jingizu (30) 7 years ago

They DID have the idea! Harry wanted to interfere, but Hermoine stopped him.

reply

[–] TwoThousandOneMark 8 years ago

Because they never did... whatever happened, happened.

You cannot alter fate through this scenario of time travel.

...top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

Well, then that brings up the paradox of the original timeline that never happened. Let's face it. They didn't think of teaming up because Pettigrew needed to escape, Sirius needed to stay as a criminal and Rowling isn't capable enough to do it any other way.

reply

[–] marinalva1996 8 years ago

It's not a plot hole, they didn't do it therefore it didn't happen. It was a possibility, but for whatever reason, whether you want to look at it as the writer not wanting the story to head that way or if you want to think it's the characters's fault for not thinking of it, it didn't happen. That's the way the story is told, anything other than that and we would have a whole different story. It's also worth noting that Hermione isn't keen on breaking rules, she probably wasn't feeling confident enough to confront her other self and decided it would be better to play it safe and interfere as little as possible. Maybe if only Harry knew about the rule, the story would have gone that route.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

"It's not a plot hole, they didn't do it therefore it didn't happen"

That's precisely what a plot hole is. "The story didn't go that way" is not a valid argument, since what I'm criticizing is precisely that. I'm not arguing that that's the way the story is told. I'm saying that the way the story is told is not the logical route it should follow. Instead is a very convenient way to keep the story going and making the rest of the books happen. All of it based on one very very flimsy rule.

Hermione isn't keen on breaking rules

And yet she breaks every single rule in the school, every single year consistently. It's very clear that she'd break rules pretty easily, and if she can break the rules so Ron can get in the Quidditch team, she can damn well break a rule to save Sirius life and capture a mass-murdering psycopath. Instead, they only save Buckbeak, why? Because we needed a dramatic ending for Goblet of Fire. (Don't get me started on the plotholes on that thing).

reply

[–] marinalva1996 8 years ago

That's precisely what a plot hole is. "The story didn't go that way" is not a valid argument, since what I'm criticizing is precisely that. I'm not arguing that that's the way the story is told. I'm saying that the way the story is told is not the logical route it should follow. Instead is a very convenient way to keep the story going and making the rest of the books happen. All of it based on one very very flimsy rule.

From what I know, a plot hole is an event that contradicts a previous event in the story. And the way I see it, it was their choice not to interact with their past selves. Convenient writing? Maybe, but I don't exactly see that as a plot hole.

And yet she breaks every single rule in the school, every single year consistently. It's very clear that she'd break rules pretty easily, and if she can break the rules so Ron can get in the Quidditch team, she can damn well break a rule to save Sirius life and capture a mass-murdering psycopath. Instead, they only save Buckbeak, why? Because we needed a dramatic ending for Goblet of Fire. (Don't get me started on the plotholes on that thing).

Yes, it's not like she's never broken any rules, but she isn't as prone to doing it as harry is, for instance, she is not as bold as he is. Also Harry was going for Pettigrew back in Hagrid's hut, but Hermione held him back, only because she was too afraid of the consequences. I'm pretty sure that if only Harry knew about the rule we would have seen a different story. What's to say that even if they had met their past selves and explained the whole story everything was gonna turn out okay? There was still some risk involved, there was too much at stake this time. In many of the other occasions in which she broke rules, it would be because she either had no choice or it would be for banal things, no risk involved. It makes sense for me that they would avoid any kind contact.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

Fist: A plot hole is, in this case, when the characters have an obvious logical solution in front of them and they don't take it because the author doesn't know how to keep the story going.This is definetly a plot hole, since teaming up was the logical solution, and anyone with two brain cells would know that someone as rational as Hermione (who has had the time turner for an entire year) wouldn't go *beep* crazy as soon as she saw another Hermione, but probably figure out something big was going on.

Second: Harry knew about the rule, the point is that the rule is pointless in this case because of what I established above. It's one thing to walk around in the street and meet another "you" out of the blue, it's another, very different thing, to have a time turner for an entire *beep* year and seeing your past/future self. And again, there was a lot at stake, and they did absolutely nothing about it. Why? Because if they would have saved Sirius and captured Pettigrew, the rest of the books wouldn't have happened (Also, taking pettigrew out by walking? Seriously? Couldn't someone have conjured a god damn cage?).

Again, for the 100th time. This whole "teaming up is a bad idea" concept hinges on an extremely flimsy and pointless rule. It has that little con and a thousand pros. They didn't team up just because Rowling is not good enough to keep the story going without plot holes.

reply

[–] marinalva1996 8 years ago

If you think it is a weak reason for them not teaming up, then it will always be a plot hole for you, but what Hermione saw during her researches about time turners was probably enough to terrorize and scare her off of attempting the meeting. And that's what makes me think that if it was up for Harry to decide he would have intervened.

Of course it is a very logical solution for the situation, but you have to take into consideration that despite how little the risk seemed to be, it was still a risk and how the characters perceived it as such. She may have thought about it, but still been afraid of acting. Characters make dumb decisions all the time in movies/tv. If it was all fvcked up and they were in a situation where they had nothing to lose then it would qualify as a plot hole, but as far as what our discussion concerns, it was simply a matter of choice.

You can't state it as being a plot hole because it's not an objective matter, it's a subjective one. Different people act differently in a same situation.

I agree on Pettigrew tho, never understood why they let him walk.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

It's not what I think, it's an objective fact that that rule only holds up when you "meet" yourself out of the blue. And someone who has been reguarly using a timeturner for an entire year should be ready for it. And yes, characters make bad decisions all the time, but if it's to develop character (The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, etc) then it's good writing. If it's to keep the plot from stopping, then it's poor writing.

Perhaps you're too much of a fanboy to notice, but anyone who knows anything about writing at all would call it a plot hole.

reply

[–] marinalva1996 8 years ago

Definitely not a fanboy, I believe everything is susceptible to flaws, and it's not different with this series. I like the series very much, but I have my fair share of problems with it, some of those problems being fundamental. The introduction of the time turner element in the series was bound to make room for all kinds of plot holes and inconsistencies just like pretty much every story that involves time traveling. I just don't think that situations in which the character has a choice qualify as a plot hole. The same reasoning can be applied to the Dumbledore-Voldemort situation. Why didn't he go back in time and stop Voldemort? There is no straight answer to that other than perhaps because he probably knows better than to mess with time, because he knows that for better or for worse inflicting such major changes in history can cause a lot of ramifications. Not to mention the variations in the time turners's capabilities of going back in time. Questionable? Very much.

Anyways, we are not going to convince each other, but yes depending on how you look at it I can understand why one would see it as a plot hole.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

The Dumbledore-Voldemort issue is precisely another plot hole. Why didn't they set up a trap before the Potters died? If something that convenient is never properly explained, then it is a plot hole. And It's the same case with the Hermione Harry team up. It was a logical obvious decision that could have solved every single problem forever, and that decision wasn't taken because then the series would have ended. What's the explanation for that decision in the book? →

→ "The very rational and intelligent Hermione (who has been using the time turner for a year in a confined enviroment) would go *beep* crazy if she saw herself."

reply

[–] ModernHorror 8 years ago

Plot hole this, plot hole that. The characters not doing what you personally wanted them to do is NOT a plot hole. Time is a closed loop here. It doesn't work how you want it to work because everything that happened has already happened. It is pre-destined. Pre determined. That is what always happened in that point in time. It can't be changed or messed with. It's a predestination paradox. You want so bad for this to be a Grandfather paradox scenario, but that is not the type of time travel used in this story.

Hail to the king, baby.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

The point went so far over your head that I don't think you ever even saw it. I know how time travel works in this universe. You're doing nothing but stating the obvious. My point is that that entire original timeline is *beep* Why? Because the characters avoided what would be the most obvious, logical decision. And why did they do it? Because of some valid reason? No, they did it because the plot demanded it. They did it because Rowling isn't capable of solving some problems while keeping the plot tight. Good god, Potter fanboys can do some hardcore butthurting.

reply

[–] ModernHorror 8 years ago

The point didn't go over my head at all, it's just not really valid because to make it, you must break the rules that have already been established with the paradox the story is using, which by the way, are actual 'objective facts' that you seem to be ignoring for the sake of your argument. All that happened here was the characters making decisions that you personally wouldn't make or didn't like. That is called a subjective opinion. Not an objective fact. Nothing that happened went against the flow of logic already established with the characters or the plot. No illogical decisions were made. They didn't "avoid" anything. They were trying to save Buckbeak. That was the most obvious and logical decision to the children at that time. Again. Subjective. That's it.

The whole "why didn't they set a trap for Voldemort" thing is just silly. 1. This story isn't even about Voldemort. 2. Setting a trap would just lead to the same conclusion. 3. Most important of all. The time travel rules in the film do not support your argument! It's fixed loop. There is only one time line. No altered version of it. Any decision they make, no matter how different they think the choice is, will always be the same one they always made or lead to the same outcome. Whatever happened, happened. Period. The End.

Hail to the king, baby.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

Of course it's a valid point. In fact, it's the only valid point in this case. You said it flowed with the plot. It did, sure. But that's only because the plot hinges on that moronic "don't meet your past self" rule (which I debunked in a previous comment). I understand that their fate is "preset". What I'm saying is that the original timeline should have been different to begin with. They should have teamed up and work together. Saving Buckbeak and Sirius. Instead they do not team up because book #4 had to happen. It is a plot hole, when the obvious solution is there but it's no taken. That's a plot hole.

Whether you like it or not, admit it or not. The plot hole is there. What you think about it it's superfluous.

The Voldemort trap thing was just an example of another blatant plot hole. Same as taking Pettigrew out without being caged and many many more in this poorly written series.

reply

[–] juancho_inchauspe 8 years ago

And it's not like "I think they should have done that". It's an obvious and flawless solution that is avoided without any valid explanation other than it would have ended the series. What do you call that?

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juancho_inchauspe 7 years ago

You keep saying that changing the past is impossible. Why? What if someone was poisoned, and you go back in time and tell him "don't drink that". You prevented him from drinking poison, you changed the past! Sorround the Potter's house with the entire Order of the Phoenix, you saved the Potters!

And if Harry and Hermione would've teamed up with their past selves, then Sirius would have never been captured to begin with. The past can be changed, of course it can. It would have been as easy as future H&H telling past H&H "hey, Sirius is actually innocent. Make sure Ron's rat doesn't escape". Period, everything's solved.

reply

[–] luvthatmouse 7 years ago

They go into this more in The Cursed Child with the time turners. The one Dumbledore gave Hermonie could only go back a few hours.

"A Time-Turner is a special timepiece in which an Hour-Reversal Charm has been encased, for added stability. It is a device used for time travel, and it resembles an hourglass on a necklace. The number of times one turns the hourglass corresponds to the number of hours one travels back in time (although, it should be noted that the longest period that may be relived without the possibility of serious harm to the traveller or to time itself is around five hours)."

Maybe Dumbledore acquired it way after the Potters died? Not sure.

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Time-Turner

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juancho_inchauspe 7 years ago

Oh my *beep* god. I KNOW they didn't change anything. I'm saying they could have. Explain: why didn't they team up? Simple! because of the "don't meet yourself" rule. Which I already explained why it doesn't apply here. I understand that what happened, happened. And H&H went back to the past to keep that Status Quo (you know what I mean). My point is that they could have just as easily solved every single problem. Wy didn't they? Well, because we needed a tragic figure for Sirius and a way for Voldemort to return.

Everything could have been fine if they met up, catch up and work together. They didn't do that because of the rule, the rule is *beep* plot-hole. Period.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juancho_inchauspe 7 years ago

Exactly, make them meet each other, then solve the problems. Then what? No solution, so JKR fixed with holes in the story. You're going full fanboy. But the truth is that there's no reason why they couldn't do what I suggested. JKR is a fairly mediocre writer, this is one example why.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juancho_inchauspe 7 years ago

I'm not a "hater" (stupid term if there's one). I actually quite enjoy this series of books, but I can recognize flawed writing.

Sure, people gave reasons, but not a single valid one. I've debunked them all. Go back, fix everything. Head back to the hospital. Nice and clean. Motivation for the past H&H to do the same in the future you say? Well, how about they realize they need to give a heads up to their past selves, just like their future selves gave them a heads up.

You might not now much about writing, so I'll repeat it. A character that doesn't take the obvious route only so the plot can keep moving forward: that's a plot hole. And it is exactly what happens here.

And I get that they get the time turner to "complete the loop", as someone suggested above. But why not change it? That's something that no one can answer. Why? because it'd be recognizing that their precious crappy books have flaws.

Bye kid.

reply

[–] LeiaOfLothlorien (1980) 7 years ago

Paradox. Rift in time and space. Yada yada. It seems to be a common time travel trope not to meet up directly with your past (or future) self, or the world ends.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2758) 5 years ago

There's a legitimate beef here, but I think the proper term is "idiot plot," where the plot can only advance if normal people act like idiots.

A "plot hole" is an internal inconsistency. The time-turner follows the self-consistency/predestination model of fictional time travel. Its use is consistent - what happened happened, and those who travel to the past simply become part of "what always happened."

No plot hole here. But potentially an idiot plot.

I think that's the real issue here - one side is asking why the characters didn't beat Voldemort using time-turners. The other side is arguing that time turners can't change the past. BUT ... that actually answers a subtly different question: "why didn't we see it on screen?"

The OP is actually asking: "why didn't the characters use that power to stop Voldemort?"

It's a legitimate question. Even Bill and Ted figured it out; in their "present," they'd come up with solutions that would require time travel from their "future." The instant they think of stealing Ted's dad's keys, the keys turn up exactly where they plan to hide it.

If Bill and Ted could exploit that advantage, it strains credulity to accept that Dumbledore couldn't.

Logically, time-turners should be rare and dangerous, to keep them from being used constantly. One can also imagine "beating" a time-turner by keeping things secret, constantly guarding against spies, etc. Not even time-travelers can't foil your plans if you keep them secret and/or kill the time-traveler.

At the very least, a limit on time-travel, say no more than 24 hours, would be reasonable. Combine that with throwaway time-traveling tactics in the final battle (e.g., future Lupin saves present Lupin, but gets killed; present Lupin now knows he has to time-travel AND die)

TLDR; It's legitimate in my view to ask why characters didn't do "X" when "X" is the first thing that'd occur to an audience member. THAT is the real question in this thread.

reply