Take the 2-minute tour ×
Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

At the end of The Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry and Hermione travel back in time to save Sirius (and as it turns out, Buckbeak) and escape the Dementors.

If this is a legitimate option for saving people, why don't they ever use it again? If they can use it to save Sirius in The Prisoner of Azkaban, why can't they use it to save him when he dies in The Order of the Phoenix? For that matter, why can't they go back to the beginning and kill Tom Riddle before he becomes Voldemort?

The only thing I can think of is that in The Prisoner of Azkaban, maybe they use the Time Turner before Sirius is given to the Dementors, and so they're not actually saving him from something that already happened; they're altering a series of events that they know will lead up to him being handed over to the Dementors. Is that how time travel works in Harry Potter land? That is, you can't alter something as definitive as death (or a Dementor's kiss), but you can alter other events that have occurred and consequently prevent a death that you know will occur?

share|improve this question
2  
Because it would spoil the story, haha. –  poepje Jun 11 '12 at 9:12
    
See also this question on Science Fiction SE: scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/8679 Why was the time turner never used again? Also scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/11946 Why Couldn't a Time Turner Have been Used to Stop Voldemort? –  b_jonas May 2 at 17:51
add comment

6 Answers 6

From what I remember about the books and the films, Hermione only gets given the Time Turner device in her third year at Hogwarts. She was given it, with the permission of the Ministry of Magic, so that she could attend two sets of lessons at once.

In this link, you can see that she stated that the pressure of using it to do twice as much work became too stressful, so she returned the device to the ministry. In the following year, all the devices were destroyed during the battle at the ministry, so it was not possible to use the device again. I am therefore guessing that the art of creating such a device was lost in the years since they were first made.

share|improve this answer
8  
Good point. I remembered that Hermione didn't have the Time Turner until the third year, but it seems a little odd that Dumbledore would give it to her in order to take classes, but not give it to Harry (or use it himself) in order to save lives. Also - now that you mention it I remember that in the books, the Time Turners were destroyed during the battle at the Ministry. But I'm not sure they pointed that out in the movie, did they? If not, they should have! –  Lauren Dec 2 '11 at 14:32
4  
You raise an interesting point. If they are so rare and can not be reproduced, why would Dumbledore give such a thing to Hermione just for taking more classes? There would be so much more useful things to do. Then again, as Dumbledore said, his greatest wish was a pair of warm socks. He of all people would know the danger of using very powerful things to do something you think is good. Instead of wishing for more power to make the world better, and instead of using the Time Turner to destroy Voldie, he used it for 'good' on a smaller scale. –  Stephan Muller Dec 5 '11 at 9:33
1  
I think that Rowling didn't really want to play with time, but it was a path she felt was necessary for the direction of the story. As such, there are going to be inconsistencies and open questions, because time travel offers an unparalleled scope, and it would be difficult, impractical and boring for the reader if they were all tied up neatly. –  Codemwnci Dec 8 '11 at 18:03
add comment

I can not recall exactly where or when but I vividly remember that Dumbledore once told Harry that playing with time can be a very dangerous act and it can trap the time abuser in something like a Time Loop (for whatever it is!).

But in my own opinion time traveling is one those matters that if not dealt with correctly and thoroughly can become one of those weak points of the story and obviously it is a weak point in the Harry Potter series.

share|improve this answer
1  
That last bit of course is very true, from the storytelling-perspective. It ruined (to me) lots of movies, tv series and books. But it doesn't explain it from a point of view inside the Potterverse. –  Stephan Muller Dec 5 '11 at 9:36
2  
Maybe you had this piece in mind, from Chapter 21, Book 3? Hermione says "Exactly! You wouldn't understand, you might even attack yourself! Don't you see? Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time ... Loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!" –  Hendrik Vogt Feb 13 '12 at 13:10
add comment

I'm not going to repeat the excellent plot oriented answers - but its my opinion that JKR probably realized that freely available and controllable time travel can critically damage your ability to make a problem that cannot be simply resolved by the protagonist. Magic itself has that problem too - but at least she can put limits on the magic and the fact that other characters in the story have magic too which cancels out some of the power that gives Harry & co.

This is exactly why (most) of the stories that include time travel that I can think of involve plot points to make it unpredictable or uncontrollable or simply hard to do:

  • Back to the Future (1.21 gigawatts of power or it is broken)
  • Dr. Who (the Tardis is broken and hard to control, and for one whole period grounded entirely)
  • Star Trek (its always some accident or external issue - though magically they always get to return ok)
  • The Time Tunnel (i seem to recall that there is an accident with it)
  • The Time Machine (he passes out when using it and ends up going too far)
share|improve this answer
6  
Dr. Who also has this idea of "fixed points in time", that cannot be altered. –  oers May 10 '12 at 8:24
add comment

From reading the books I'd say that in a sense a Time-Turner can't really be used to change the past at all. In The Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry and Hermione use the Time-Turner around midnight to travel back three hours in time, endeavoring to save Sirius and Buckbeak. However, everything they do in these three hours has already happened:

  • At the end of Chapter 16, there's "the unmistakable swish and thud of an axe" (followed by Hagrid's howling). Later we learn that this was not the executioner killing Buckbeak, but the executioner swinging his axe into the fence in anger.

  • At the end of Chapter 20, Harry, Hermione and Sirius are saved from the dementors by the Patronus that the back-in-time Harry conjured, and the "real" Harry sees his "future" self patting the Patronus (believing that he sees his father).

  • Only in Chapter 21 they use the Time-Turner. I'd say they have to use it since they had already taken influence on the past, as described in the previous two bullet points – their travelling back in time had already happened.

Thus, the answer to your question is: When you use a Time-Turner, you can alter only events that you have no definitive knowledge of. (Everything Harry and Hermione do is 100% consistent with what they had already experienced first-hand.) In particular, you can't go back to the beginning and kill Tom Riddle before he becomes Voldemort.

share|improve this answer
1  
While the examples from the book may be sound, this whole question is about the movie. If this same question was asked on lit.se, then this would be a good answer, but this is about the movie, and as far as i can remember, no in-movie explanation was ever given about this. –  TylerShads Feb 13 '12 at 15:59
1  
@Tyler: Yeah, you're right. That's why I started my answer with "from reading the books". I just thought the answer might still help. –  Hendrik Vogt Feb 13 '12 at 16:02
    
I have no doubt it helps with the answer and the books themselves say flat out why. I'm just trying to poke around and get people's reactions to answers to adaptations using the source material, rather than the movie itself :) –  TylerShads Feb 14 '12 at 4:45
    
@Tyler: Right, that's good. Then here's another one for you. That's the answer I was just going to post :-) –  Hendrik Vogt Feb 14 '12 at 7:45
add comment

If just say Harry had travelled back to when Tom Riddle was young and killed him, Harry would have no way of getting back to the present time as it appears the Time Turner only allows people to go back and no forward. This would result in Harry being old by the time he is supposed to be in Hogwarts.

So if this was to work then one individual would have to sacrifice their life in the present time for a life in the past.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Here's a hypothesis since it is in stated in the book. I believe even with magic a person cannot go back in time before their birth. Also may be the time turner is simply a magical object that isn't as powerful enough to move far back in time.

But thats just hypothesis, only real facts is that it has mental effects on the user. Like Hermione getting stressed or Dumbledore warning that the wearer cannot let the past self see their future counterpart otherwise they can get crazy.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.