x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#314 - fawkwayne (01/31/2013) [-]
@ #10: Taking a page from Doctor Who, it would be disastrous to cross your own timeline. Also you have to live through the time you went back to.   
So in effort the current you would cease to exist the moment your past self saw your current self (In this case you being Harry) because since that event hadn't happened in your original timeline, your timeline would change and the current you would be non-existent. Of course there is ways to make sure you (past) don't see yourself (current), but again you would have to live in hiding until the moment you (past) goes into the past. Effectively taking off that much time from your life.   
   
tl;dr Don't go back in time to change your own timeline
@ #10: Taking a page from Doctor Who, it would be disastrous to cross your own timeline. Also you have to live through the time you went back to.
So in effort the current you would cease to exist the moment your past self saw your current self (In this case you being Harry) because since that event hadn't happened in your original timeline, your timeline would change and the current you would be non-existent. Of course there is ways to make sure you (past) don't see yourself (current), but again you would have to live in hiding until the moment you (past) goes into the past. Effectively taking off that much time from your life.

tl;dr Don't go back in time to change your own timeline
User avatar #318 to #314 - fawkwayne (01/31/2013) [-]
Before someone thinks I forgot, it was still dangerous for Harry & Hermione to go back in time, but because they needed to free Sirius, they did it. And Hermione already knew about time travel in the moment they went back so for her to see herself only assured her that she needed to go back later.
#319 to #314 - mycathascancer ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
i must agreee sir
i must agreee sir
#259 - deadmuerto (01/31/2013) [-]
anyone?
User avatar #262 to #259 - jerrywolf (01/31/2013) [-]
That was a really bad movie.
User avatar #178 - agitatedscientist (01/31/2013) [-]
There are two schools of thought concerning time travel. The more traditional approach would be that when a time traveler goes back, he can change the events of history. In this version of time travel, there never was a time traveler anywhere in history until the first one moved from his own time period. This would be exemplified in Back to the Future.

The second theory would be that the events of time cannot be changed. The time traveler tries to prevent or cause something, but inadvertently causes history to repeat itself in the exact same manner or fails to change anything at all. The time traveler was always present at this point in time, as well as their starting point.

The Time Turner is based on the second theory. Buckbeak was saved the first time around, but they had to go back in time to be there. The Potter's deaths were in itself proof that no one used a time turner to save them, or no one succeeded in saving them when they did use the time turner. Therefor, it would be useless to try to use the time turner to save them, as it would be theoretically impossible, even with magic.

There is a reason they let a young student use the thing. In all reality it's just a toy.
User avatar #183 to #178 - churrundo (01/31/2013) [-]
it's one is travling through the fifth dimension, the other is traveling in the fourth
User avatar #423 - pokelova (01/31/2013) [-]
The 'The Santa Clause' one applies to pretty much any Santa movie.
User avatar #413 - whoofwho (01/31/2013) [-]
God damn it faggot, why?

User avatar #404 - rplix (01/31/2013) [-]
The Harry Potter one was pretty interesting.
#406 to #404 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
its only a plot hole in the movies
in the book rowling explains it away i believe in five, the attack on the ministry destroyed all the timeclocks
User avatar #425 to #404 - stanleys (01/31/2013) [-]
I think the reason that they dont use time turners for large past events is because they only work one way, so say if you used it to go back 2 months, you would be stuck in that time hiding until your future self goes to the past
User avatar #383 - sweetnothings (01/31/2013) [-]
The Aladdin one doesn't make sense to me. He wasn't freaking out because Jasmine couldn't marry a prince he was freaking out because of the resposibilities that came along with being a prince. He started to have self doubts because he didn't think he was capable of becoming sultan. After he defeated Jafar he realized that he would be able to handle it and since Jasmine could only marry a prince he was going to re-wish himself one so that he could marry her but of course he does the right thing and sets the genie free like he promised.
+1
#290 - berrypie **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#324 to #290 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
So his tactics for dealing with enemies that can obviously defeat him is to stand still? He did it on key with everybody else, nobody told him to do it, he didn't hide behind a wall, but stood still out in the open. If he thought he wasn't a toy, and instead a space ranger, why would he just stay still? He doesn't stay still when he sees Zurg. If every time a soldier saw an enemy, he stayed still in open sight, he would be ******* dead. The **** Buzz?
+1
#275 - kokanium **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #267 - dawinnamon ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
For number two, the many worlds theory would solve that problem. When he went back in time, he slept with this mom, but a different mom. He slept with an exact copy of his mother but one parallel to his "present", just that happens to be back in time. When he went back in time, he created a different world with that decision, one where he did his mom, and one where he didn't. the one where he did not go back in time is the truth. Look it up online for clarification, for I am grossly oversimplifying.
User avatar #243 - stocxt ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
Maybe Loraine wouldn't think much of Marty looking like that guy she met 30 years ago because to her knowledge and common logic that would be ******* impossible.
#242 - csmithyo (01/31/2013) [-]
that last one made me laugh
that last one made me laugh
User avatar #217 - uptightmonkey (01/31/2013) [-]
man i loved mean girls
User avatar #205 - goochmaster (01/31/2013) [-]
*5 Aladdin
Now, what I'm about to say is under the assumption that whoever made this is wondering where one of the wishes went. When Aladdin is thrown into the water, Genie says something along the lines of, "AL! Just wish yourself back on land!" But Aladdin can't, because his mouth is gagged. Genie then says, "I'll take that as a wish!" And transports him to land.
User avatar #208 to #205 - Furubatsu (01/31/2013) [-]
He was talking about why Alladin's two other wishes were the exact same thing. To be a prince so ha could marry Jasmine.
User avatar #264 to #208 - MakiChan (01/31/2013) [-]
i thought his 3rd wish was for genie to be free? or did you mean the wording of the 2nd to be a prince so he can have a shot at marrying her/ he wished for love first but thats a nono? i think wishing to be a prince gives him a chance but doesnt really def mean he will marry her so its not a direct wish for love, which was against genie rules.
User avatar #449 to #264 - Furubatsu (01/31/2013) [-]
No the reason he kept Genie so long after making his two wishes was just encase whish number one went wrong and he needed Genie to help him out of it, therefore he intended to go back on his promise to free him.
User avatar #211 to #208 - goochmaster (01/31/2013) [-]
Oh, I see now. I misread it. Thank you for clearing it up.
#91 - therealwaynebrady (01/30/2013) [-]
the gremlin one is kind of a stretch
#143 to #91 - aiicii (01/30/2013) [-]
but it does work without the "somewhere" part
User avatar #161 to #143 - therealwaynebrady (01/30/2013) [-]
it's still just a rat loophole. The whole point was that you couldn't feed the at night, the other posts are actually plotholes, this one was just sort of twisting the words that they said in the movie
#169 to #161 - aiicii (01/30/2013) [-]
midnight is considered to be at 0:00 so there is no loophole. if the point they were trying to get across was to not feed it at night, why did they say not to feed it after midnight? people should say what they mean so others wouldn't think that they mean what they say.
User avatar #74 - sammyjankiis (01/30/2013) [-]
They can play actually. The movie says so.
User avatar #70 - wonderlandman (01/30/2013) [-]
for the Jurassic park one, i thought it was a cliff on the other side of the road
#63 - deusexmachinase (01/30/2013) [-]
In Harry, Potter Hermione returns the time turner to McGonagall. Also, You aren't allowed be seen for some weird reason...

Waddya gonna do?
#79 to #63 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
I believe the reason Rowling gives is that people who either see them self or people who see the same person twice at the same time either stand the risk of killing the future version or going insane from the encounter. It isn't well explained in the movie, but it is in the third book. Don't quote me exactly on it.
0
#87 to #79 - wickedtruth **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#103 to #87 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
at the time he got along with the ministry. He didn't start to fight with them untill the end of the fourth book.
0
#167 to #103 - wickedtruth **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#64 to #63 - deusexmachinase (01/30/2013) [-]
... Put the comma in a wrong place.
#204 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
In the Harry Potter one, they hadn't lost a friend yet, unless they were to try to figure out how far back to go to save the original Order of the Phoenix, which they didn't even know existed, and Hermoinie turns hers back inat the end of that year. Then in book five they accidentally destroy all the ministry's time turners when they are being pursued by death-eaters. Why other people didn't use them before that, is they were highly regulated by the ministry to keep people from messing with the natural order ie saving their friends who should have died
User avatar #207 to #204 - Furubatsu (01/31/2013) [-]
Not to mention if they used it to stop Voldimort it would just create a paradox since no voldimort means there would be no reason to go back in time to stop him.
User avatar #246 to #207 - sketchE ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
not really. the moment they go back in time they no longer exist on the same timeline. the real issue is that they couldnt come back to the present. the time turner only gos back and while it would be nce to just go back in time and kill voldemort no one would want to be stuck back in time all alone
#106 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
I thought J.K. Rowling wrote into the fifth book that all of the time-turners had been destroyed in the fiasco at the Ministry. If they no longer existed they couldn't be used.
User avatar #114 to #106 - thedarkassassin (01/30/2013) [-]
Hermione also gave hers back.
 Friends (0)