ABSOLUTE BIGGEST PLOTHOLE: Harry watches his parents die as he is a toddler, roughly 2 years old (already standing in the crib), and in the first scene of the first film he is dropped off by hagrid as a baby, obviously younger than he is when he watched his parents die, making it impossible for him to 1. see his parents die or 2. be taken away by hagrid AFTER the murder.
+theLOULesgacataqgcat lel Technically, Harry was a year and 7 months old when his parents died, give or take two days. He would *DEFINITELY* not be a baby when he was dropped off at the dursley's. He would be more of a toddler.
+SolasRuinedMyLife Harry's birthday is July 31st 1980. Voldemort killed Harry's parents on October 30th 1981. He was given to the Durselys the next day. He'd have been a year and 3 months old, still a baby I'd say.
"Hogwarts is the safest place on earth." -Hagrid Year 1: Voldemort Year 2: Bassilisk Year 3: Dementors Year 4: All sorts of crazy shit Years 5-7: Voldemort again Conclusion: Hagrid is out of his god damn mind
Jesse Schoedel The chamber of secrets was opened when he was young and he had his wand snap. If I was him, the words hogwarts and safe would never go together m.
Jesse Schoedel I not saying he did but if I was at a school where the chamber was open and I was framed, I would never use the word safe to describe the school.
also do not forget the students themselves suffer from infighting between the pure bloods and mud bloods which is further worsened by the fact that one house is completely devoted to a fanatical pure blood and is the to look spot for recruiting new death eaters, then there is all the shit in the forest, the tri-wizard cup is hosted there now and then, one of their most popular sports involves flying who knows how many feet off the air and PRAYING someone catches you if you fall, the defense against the dark arts teachers are all crazy with the exception being Lupis and Snape but Lupis was a werewolf and Snape was secretly with voldimort so other than those most the other teachers have turned out to be nut jobs or death eaters/servents of voldimort. trust me even without the beasts and constantly changing school there is still much more to be worried about.
Time is a weird thing. If they went back an stopped everything bad from happening, then they'd never had gone back to fix those, because they were already fixed, which would mean those problems wouldn't get fixed, so they'd go back in time to fix them, and start the cycle all over again.
actually if they went back in time and fixed the problems, the problems would never occur leaving no need to back and fix them because they were already fixed
+Jedimaster Yorhacken Actually, it depends on your theory of time. If you go as time is one line or series and we only go back in that series, then yes you create a paradox of sorts, though as Miles says, they wouldn't have existed in the first place, and so that and your motivation for going to the past would both disappear. However, if you go by the multiple worlds theory, then at the point that they stop the bad things, they branch off the time line in a slightly different manner.
Don't forget that you need to turn that thing by the hour. If you want to go back like 10 years you need to turn it atleast 87650 times. And nobody got time for that! + to get back to your original time you need to live through those 10 years and that would just fuck up time even more.
+Jedimaster Yorhacken In the Harry Potter universe (at least the one in the movies) it's established that every wizard who travels through time is already a fixed point. Ergo, if it didn't happen already, you can't travel back in time to make it happen.
If I remember, blue and green eyes are caused by the same gene so I guess it could pass but anyone could correct me if I'm wrong. And also, I've heard of babies being born with blue eyes which gradually darkened and became brown but I don't know if it can go the other way round..
+AngryPrawn I'm reading the books now, and I'm pretty certain that the Thestrals are something JK thought up between books, and it was too late to go back and fix the end of Goblet of Fire, when the carriages roll up and take them away, and Harry sees nothing. I can accept that baby Harry's witnessing of his parent's death doesn't count because baby and memories, but seeing Cedric die most certainly does, and he rode in a horseless carriage after that event.
Harry couldn't see the thestrals because in order to see them you have to see death and have an understanding of it. Harry was a baby so he didn't understand what was happening.
+Grace Phillips you have to understand death in order to see the thestrals, Rowling made that clear in the 5th book, Order of the Pheonix. Plus, Harry was just a baby, so he didn't really remember. It took me a while to figure that out.
Everybody keeps mentioning that Radcliffe was having reactions to the contacts, ok cool. But why wouldn't they recast his mother in the final movie for Snapes flashback to match Radcliffe's eyes
King Savage97 Exactly. Why hire a brown eyed actress to play young Lily. People are saying quality of acting matters more than choosing an actress with the right eye color but young lily didn’t even have any lines!
@@StefunnyStrange she literally says "thats mean severus " and then later "hi I'm lily" so she did have lines lol but she didnt even say them that good. They could have found a better lily with BLUE EYES
Murder by proxy. Voldemort told Pettigrew to "kill the spare" so Voldemort would still be the murderer assuming wizarding laws considers proxy murders.
The reason he couldn't see thestrals from the beginning is because, when Lily died, he wasn't yet old enough to understand what death was. It's a cognitive thing. Cedric was the first person he saw die when he could actually understand what death was.
philipp fuhrmann Harry never saw Quirrell die. He blacked out and was rushed to the hospital wing by Dumbledore. Quirrell died after Harry blacked out, when Voldemort abandoned him to die. The movie completely botched that.
harry doesnt remember his parents dying what he sees from his parents getting murdered is through voldemorts eyes because apart of his soul lives inside him
Something interesting for me is the amount of pupils at hogwarts. If there are roughly 5 kids to a dorm room (Harry, Ron, Neville, Dean, Seamus). That would make roughly 40 kids per year. That’s only 280 pupils in the school!
If you look at the tables in the great hall then yes this might make sense. But if you looked at the Quidditch pitch it looks like there’s way more than 280 pupils... But also let’s not forget this is just one school in Great Britain. I’m assuming wizards don’t come by the dozens in this universe
The dumbest plot hole to me was Hagrid telling them to "follow the spiders", which Ron and Harry did, which led them to Hagrid's pet spider, Aragog. Aragog the spider had valuable information that could clear Hagrid of the false charges against him. Aragog the spider knows that Ron and Harry are trying to save Hagrid, and can do so now that Aragog has given them this information.......but then Aragog allows his children to attack and try to kill Ron and Harry anyway. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in terms of plot. They just had the spiders chase Ron and Harry because it looked dramatic. Things like this greatly undermine the story.
Aragog was old and blind, and it was made abundantly clear that he could barely keep his nightmarish spawn from killing Hagrid (presumably by reminding the world's greatest justification for bug spray at every opportunity that they literally wouldn't exist without Hagrid); he was also fairly blunt about how misguided Hagrid was about the friendliness of giant spiders. He'd've probably had a fight for dominance (which he simply couldn't have won) on his hands if he'd tried defending two children that had no connection to him.
The books clearly explain that you can't mess with things that have already happened when you use a time turner. Time is a complicated thing and whoever uses the time turner is asked to be extremely careful. Hermione didn't even let herself stumble across herself when she was using it for classes, and that's what she warns Harry about when he thinks of capturing Peter Pettigrew in POA when he is by Hagrid's hut. (I don't remember where that happened in the book). And also, Hermione hitting Harry with a pebble to make them leave Hagrid's Hut is wrong! Hermione knows to be more careful than that!
+VatsalaMolly So how do they save buckbeak? Either he dies and they change something that happened or buckbeak is saved before they travel back meaning saving him preserves what happened as per the explaination., which is impossible as they save him.
@@kzbw Or we can all just get over it and agree that "having someone's eyes" doesn't necessarily have to refer to color but could also, possibly, just refer to shape.
that is still absolutely no excuse for how it ended up because young lily has brown eyes, old lily has green eyes and harry blue.. they fucked that up big time.. i mean they could have just cgi'ed their eyes to match.. not that hard nowadays..
Harry was to young to remember the death of his parents, confirmed by Rowling, because, pretty much no one can remember what happens to them as a baby.
ROCKanimeloves there is a theory that he doesn’t remember, and that the dementor flashback of Lily’s scream is in fact Voldemort’s worst memory (the memory of him dying), not Harry’s
I remember being 12 months. Couldnt walk yet, only stand. Brief flashback of the room and crib. He was 15 months In particular with traumatic events one can recall them very early, sometimes even nontraumatic ones PS just to remind you that Harry is constany having foken flashbacks to it
I think Lavender Brown was made white when she became Ron's love interest because she was kind of a nutcase and people would have freaked out if the only significant black character was portrayed that way.
I've read that in the first movie he actualy wears/or tries to wear (too lazy to check) green contacts, but they were so uncomfrotable, that they decided to skip on that.
@@thegreatfusili4673 nope. The whole point of the elder wand is that it is the most powerful wand ever created. In the books AND in the movies Ollivanders explains to Harry (in Will's house) that wands can change allegiance depending on a wizard's defeat.
Astralaris Well She was already paid to be Lily, so it would cost them a new actor. Besides J K Rowling loved little Lily, it her was choice to use her
@@jacobsejer4527 yeah but then why not just cgi the eyes of young and old lily to match harrys or for that matter all 3 of them so they are green and match the books?
Here's the thing, Harry had no concept of what death was when he saw his mum and dad die, he did not know what he was seeing, JK Rowling has clarified this up
Forget the witnessing of his parents. The movies mostly foobar this one because Harry witnesses Quirrell die in the movie whereas Harry blacks out in the book. On one hand, I can't totally blame the movies because this is what happens when you start a movie franchise before all the books have been finished. On the other hand, they could have found a way explain it or deviate from the book to keep continuity. For example, they could have changed it so that you can only see Threstals if you witnessed the death of a loved one.
This is my problem with these "plot hole" videos on youtube. Most of the people don't even understand what a plot hole is. They're mostly just minor continuity errors, or unexplained changes due to behind-the-scenes studio reason (eg. changing actresses, etc). A plot hole is a major issue that should actually prevent the story from moving forward. Minor issues that kinda bug you are not the same as plot holes. The color of Harry's eyes is irrelevant.
not as bad and indiana jones. If he wasnt in the film, then the nazis would have done exactly the same thing. and still killed themselves. there was no need for them to intervene
"....unless you tell us they exist in the book, I don't care what's in Pottermore" I'm a huge Potter fan but I agree with Adam on this, don't write 7 books with plot holes then say "Well, I thought about it and xyz, because I said so." Its a cop out, but I understand they were making movies while she was still writing books, contracts were signed and a whole generation were hooked on her characters. Still.....
I always thought it was a bit odd that in the Philosopher's Stone, Harry, Hermione, Ron and Draco were punished for being out of bed after dark.. by serving detention being out of bed after dark.. in the Forbidden Forest no less.. especially considering there were already suspicions about who killed the unicorns there. Plus, Hagrid thinks it's a great idea to split up and let first years Harry and Draco wander around a dangerous forbidden forest by themselves, facing Voldemort with basically hardly any magic experience.
Another one: students go to buy they school robes before they are sorted into the four houses. The problem is that in the films these robes look differently for each house.
+Tiffany Granger well this is unlikely but we know dumbledor can change the decorasions of the cafatery so maiby he can add the logo to the robe's thay boght+Eleanor Brinkman why do thay need to by generic robes if thay are given new one's as soon as thay get sorted
OK as a diehard Potterhead I can't just walk away. Most of these """plot holes""" only exist in the movies. And since JK didn't write those movies, I barely even consider them canon. You definitely can't consider them plot holes of the Harry Potter universe. 9. Lavender Brown's race - casting choice, not a plot hole 6. Polyjuice voices - weird editing choice to help the audience keep track of the characters' true identities that inevitably would lead to inconsistencies. Obviously not in the books. 5. Priori Incantatem - Lily comes out first in the book... in the movies they come out at the same time... don't even know why this is on this list. 4. Hogwarts grounds - Developments in set design, honestly not complaining, they were gorgeous, and Hogwarts exists in the readers' consciousness anyway. 3. Lily's eyes - Again, dumb casting choice. Don't mistake the adaptors' stupidity for the creator's negligence. 2. Expelliarmus - By no means a plot hole in the book, the movies constantly changed their minds on what "disarming" actually meant. In the books it was always a clear definition: the wand leaves the disarmed's hand. The "plot holes" that still exist in the books can be explained with some pretty decent theories that have plenty solid evidence. 10. There are several decent theories for the Peter/Ron thing. One is that if a person on the map is in Animagus form, only a person who knows they are an Animagus can see their true identity on the map. Another is that the map is specifically designed to never reveal any of the Marauders - as it is the Marauders' Map, and they literally invented it so they could sneak around the school undetected, it makes perfect sense. Having created such an intricate piece of magic in the first place, it also makes sense that they would be magically talented enough to add this security precaution. 8. You can't see Thestrals if you've just 'witnessed' death. Harry was a baby when he saw his mother killed. His memory is of nothing but a bright green light - he never understood it was death he was witnessing, so he doesn't feel that he's seen death. Also, when he saw Quirrell die he didn't fully understand at the time that he was actually dying, and he may have actually passed out before he died completely. It may also be because he felt no remorse about Quirrell's death - perhaps you can only see Thestrals if you are haunted by the death you've seen. This makes sense, as Thestrals serve more of a metaphorical purpose, especially as they arrive at a time in Harry's life when he is truly dealing with death for the first time. I wouldn't be surprised if remorseless, cold-blooded killers like Voldemort have never seen a Thestral, as he has never been haunted by any death he's witnessed. 7. Another trivial point that I don't understand why it's even on the list. Harry never asked anyone to fix his eyesight. He was a little preoccupied, you know, saving the world. It probably never even considered to him, having grown up in the muggle world. 1. Honestly, I'm annoyed when people keep bringing up this "plot hole". For one thing, it can all be explained by the fact that the Harry Potter universe is not this lawless dystopian hellscape where people can get their hands on Time Turners whenever they want to do whatever they want. They are under immensely strict guard by the Ministry, and it's actually super-significant that they only allowed McGonagall to issue Hermione a Time Turner for her homework - there was a fuck tonne of paperwork and whatnot to ensure that Hermione would only be using it for her school work, and not anything else, because (READ THE BOOK): *AWFUL THINGS HAPPEN TO WIZARDS WHO MEDDLE WITH TIME, HARRY.* Seriously, just watching your basic sci-fi flick like Back to the Future or Doctor Who should show you why time travel was so heavily regulated - if people got their hands on Time Turners, intending to just go back and change one thing for selfish reasons, the Ministry has no way of knowing or controlling what dangerous things could crop up in the present. I mean, are you seriously suggesting that a Harry Potter story where they abuse time travel to the point where they have to escape a dystopia only to return to an entirely unchanged present so that the entire story was useless and inconsequential is a good idea? Dude. They tried that. It did not go down well.
You are wrong on two points, which as an avid Potter fan myself, I feel I must inform you of. 1. James comes out of the wand first. He tells Harry his mother is coming, and that she wants to see him. Go back and re-read it. 2. Harry had no idea Peter Pettigrew was an animagus, and therefore would not have seen him on the map if the first theory was the case. The second theory is only possible if the Marauders are able to still see each other on the map, and the map recognises Harry as a direct blood-relation to James and therefore an honorary Marauder.(In both of these, I am talking about the movie, not the book. Both theories are plausible when Harry is not the one to see Pettigrew on the map.) Also, while many of the things in the list are not plot holes in the books, they definitely are plot holes in the movies. This video does conflate the two way too much, though. I personally would have preferred a video that looks solely at plot holes the movies or at plot holes in the books.
Ok fine I'll give you the wand thing. To be honest I don't see it as a plot hole because it's a fairly trivial mistake and doesn't affect anything else in the story. With the map, both of the theories I raised were just that - theories. That being said, Harry did NOT see Pettigrew on the map, as long as we are going off of the books, so that theory's still airtight. I think once you bring the movies into any conversation about plot holes, it just becomes chaos, because they're so inconsistent. I don't consider them canon, so I don't consider them plot holes of the Harry Potter story. I too would have preferred a book/movie separation, because they're soooo different. A plot hole list about the movies would go on for hours, though.
I definitely agree that the wand thing is not quite a plot hole, it just bothered me how many people seem to be trying to pretend that mistake didn't happen. It's not a significant one, but it still was an error. As for the map, I agree that in the books it isn't a plot hole and there are plausible theories for it. I just mention it because the movie absolutely does turn it into a plot hole by having Harry be the one to discover Pettigrew on the map. I do agree this is not a plot hole of the books, but it is one of the more irritating plot holes in the movies in my opinion (since the majority of the plot holes on this list are movie-based, I don't mind this one being mentioned). I also just find the marauder's map to be fascinating and would enjoy more elaboration on it. Honestly, I just try to hold the books and the movies as separate entities from each other, and I wish lists like this would do the same. Jumping back and forth between the two is chaotic.
Oh absolutely, the movies are riddled with plot holes, for so many reasons - eg each director brought new inconsistencies, they left out crucial explanations, they changed stuff for dramatic effect. To be perfectly honest, I love that scene in the movie PoA where Harry sees Pettigrew on the map - it's really tense and pushes the story forward nicely. But of course it creates plot holes. Couldn't agree more - the movies and books need to be looked at separately. As far as adaptations go, they're more faithful than most, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty, they're completely different stories.
The order of which his parents come out of the want was actually changed after Rowling herself acknowledged her mistake in that one. Later editions have it the right way, my old first edition doesn't.
I think what he meant was (even tho Daniel couldn't have green eyes) tthey could've cast a Lily Evans with blue eyes so the whole "you have your mothers eye's" thing would still fit. It creates a huge plot hole because Snape loved Lily and the "green eyes" comment was used a lot throughout the books
States in the books that the Time Turner can only go back a couple days. This list was actually full of holes. I counted 3 of these being actual plot holes lol.
the plot hole i don't understand is "the five exceptions to Gamp's law of transfiguration" it is impossible to transfigure stuff into food, but it is possible to transfigure stuff into ANIMALS? there are several classes where the students transfigure a goblet into a bird or whatever. in the 7th book Harry, Hermione and Ron have trouble getting food - couldn't they just transfigure a piece of wood into a rat and roast it? THEY LEARNED IT AT SCHOOL IN LIKE THE 1ST YEAR
It is possible to transfigure things into food but not permanently. If you transfigure a leaf into a sandwich and eat the sandwich the sandwich will turn back into a leaf because transfiguration isn’t permanent.
You missed one big one: the Vanishing Cabinet Malfoy uses in 6. It’s arch is explained in the books, but in the movies, it just conveniently pops into existence in a magic room we don’t know how he knew about, and also connects to a dark magic shop for some reason that Malfoy apparently knew somehow. Yay cutting out seemingly small details for the movies.
The whole using Expelliarmus spell as a key signature spell grated on me when I first watched the films. Because there's another spell they could've easily used to replace its over usage: Stupefy. A spell that stuns the opponent. As we know, Expelliarmus only disarms your opponent of their weapon, which in theory, should make the opposing foe more vulnerable to an upcoming attack (unless of course they can do non-verbal magic and so losing their wand doesn't make any sort difference anyway). But no, the spell suddenly becomes godlike in power in the films when J.K Rowling created tonnes of spells in the books, most of which were never in the films or if they were, were not mentioned by name (I think Levicorpus is one - the spell James uses on Snape in the memory Harry pokes into in film/book 5). Though magic in general was just not shown in the films as it was in the books and there were so many inconsistencies in what magic does/looks like in the films anyway.
I think even in books LILLY came out first of Voldemort's wand as she had wishpered to Harry that his father is coming too before James told him about the cup
Actually, some of the comments here say that in the first edition of the book, it was James who came out first, but Rowling realized she'd made a mistake and told the publisher to correct it in later editions.
if Harry Potter used the time turner to save his parents it would take him 13 years to return to the present. I think the time turner could only reverse time
+TheApexPlayer then the dark lord wouldn't been defeated if Dumbledore didn't by the hand of snape the dark lord would not trust snape fully and snape wouldn't been able to tell Harry off his secret.
+DoctorPepperPlays It doesnt though.The Time turner pulls you back in time and this means there will be 2 Harry's and the Harry that travelled back in time would have to go incognito for life,since the Harry in the past would never use the Time turner since the purpose for using the time turner does not exist.Also ,his parents,or anyone else, wouldnt die but he would never be able to interact with them normally since there is already another version of him.
Harry didn't even see Cedric Diggory die, in the books it said that Harry had his eyes closed, saw green light shine through his shut eyelids, and then opened his eyes and saw Cedric dead. Even if Harry hadn't seen his mom die, he wouldn't be able to see the thestrals.
Has this question been answered yet: At the end of the school year the average house points are around 400. That low number doesn't make sense as students get 5-10 points for good answers in classes. Loosing points usually happens for bad behaviour and students are always very annoyed by that, means they don't loose that much (imagine the hate between each other when they would loose points for wrong answers). So 400 points could be a result at the end of each day lol
The later additions made parts of it more realistic and accurate to similar styles. Also they provided more and better places and situations for some scenes in the movies.
+Baked Not Fried And wearing contacts for 4 years might not have been a lot of fun when you're a kid/teen. But yeah, they could have decided to make Lily's eyes blue in the movies, so I get the movies point.
You can also inherit the shape and configuration of a parent's eyes but a different color. My eyes are like my father but brown rather than blue like his.
+Baked Not Fried When Snape said Harry has his mothers eyes I interpreted it as them bearing a resemblance. Different pairs of eyes side by side in black and white still look different. As long as there was some even minor physical resemblance I think it works.
+Baked Not Fried , think they were trying to fix the coloration using lighting effects, filters and postproduction tricks. Unfortunately, the different directors probably all had their desire for tone in the movies and it never worked out well.
I have read a rather plausible fan theory about the Pettigrew problem: the Marauders, being Animagi themselves and wanting it to remain a secret, cast a spell on the map that made it impossible for the user to see an Animagus unless he/she was aware that the person was one. That would also explain why no one noticed Rita Skeeter. Also, the Weasley twins only used the map for their mischiefs, not to check on the others. Plus, there are hundreds of people moving in Hogwarts at the same time.
1) The map only shows the territory of Hogwarts 2) Well, what can you do, if they already included the character and later it was described of how she looked? 3) Actual plothole 4) Actual plothole 5) Exactly, no problem in the books 6) Actual plothole 7) Actual plothole 8) Radcliffe was allergic to contacts, so he couldn't wear it, and he was handpicked by Rowling. 9) Actual plothole 10) If you go back to save Harry's parents, it wouldn't work, because they would survive, which would mean Harry never had to return to save his parents, which means they didn't survive.
1) Exaclty Ron had Scabbers around all the time including at Hogwarts they no doubt would have tried to see their brother multiple times with the map so they should have seen Peter. 2) She was never described in the books that's why it makes no sense for them to change her race as soon as she becomes a major character they would still have been in line with the books. 10) It's just the fact that they never even addressed that question or any others while holding the most powerful item ever.
" If you go back to save Harry's parents, it wouldn't work, because they would survive, which would mean Harry never had to return to save his parents, which means they didn't survive." Time-paradoxes are still plottholes.
the time turner one was actually addressed in the third film in a way as hermione clearly stated "bad things happen to wizards who meddle with time". wizards had gone mad using the time turner too much and thus, it was only supposed to be used in the correct way. time-paradoxes are always plot holes because really, if you change what happened, then it could change EVERYTHING else. harry would not have been the same person he was, therefore, it's possible neither would hermione and ron or ANYONE else for that matter. thinking logically. nothing would have been the same and i for one, would have been pissed to read the 7th book only to find out that they used the time turner, went back and killed voldemort as a kid and then nothing in the 7 books had ever happened.
"If you go back to save Harry's parents, it wouldn't work, because they would survive, which would mean Harry never had to return to save his parents, which means they didn't survive." Actually this logic is completely flawed. You could say the same thing about saving Sirius. Dumbledore comes up and tells Harry that Sirius is locked in a cell waiting for death. Harry goes back in time, prevents Sirius from being captured, which means Harry never had to return to save Sirius, which means Sirius got killed.
How the fuck is Harry wearing glasses a plot hole? That is just as dumb as saying it was a plot hole for Jean-Luc Picard to be bald in Star Trek because "we could totally have 'cured' baldness by then."
TheSqoad I haven’t bothered to watch the video so I’m not sure what they suggest on here... but I’ve always wondered why he wears glasses too... if wizards can invent a way to “regrow” bones and breath underwater then surely they can figure out a way to fix simply fix his near sightedness lol
yeah sure but no self respecting captain would do that. Plus i dont want to see picard with hair, that would be weird on a more serious note, bad eyes are a legitimate detriment, balding isnt.
Chris Jones but you're also missing the fact that Harry was muggle raised, and most of the wizarding population wouldn't know that, therefore Harry wouldn't know about such a thing cuz he has no logic at all, in the books or movies, and the wizarding population would just assume the the saviour of the Wizarding world would know of such things. It could also be a family trait, like the untidy hair, or Harry might have just wanted to have something that both him and his dad shared, bad eye sight. Remember this, Harry is stupid, so all this points would be valid.
khaleel khan It still doesn’t really account for why other witches or wizards have them though. Unless in all their progress, they’ve never found a way to fix eye sight
Chris Jones or it might just be a type of ritual that isn't well known or is expensive to conduct. The ritual would technically have to reconstruct you eye, which is a very delicate muscle, so it would only make sense to be expensive. The eye isn't like a bone, if magic could just heal you up like that, I don't really think horcruxes would be needed lol, just carry a few potions and u would be near immortal.
In number 3, the reason he doesn't have his mothers eyes is because the contacts caused an allergic reaction in Daniel Radcliff's eyes, and it was too difficult to constantly use CGI.
She does have blue eyes. This is an image of the actress, Geraldine Somerville. When they found out that Daniel was allergic to contacts, J.K. Rowling said it's fine if Harry's eyes aren't green as long as the actress who played his mother had the same colored eyes as him. Here is the image: s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/68/8f/65/688f65b1ab6458de18459019d26cf289.jpg Those eyes look pretty blue to me.
Caitlyn Lewis It's true. Rowling said it wasn't such a big deal for her if their eyes weren't green but blue. In the flashbacks it's pretty obvious she's got blue eyes,but apparently not everyone is actually looking at the details
J.K Rowling's answer to the Thestral thing: Everyone has said to me that Harry saw people die before could see the Thestrals. Just to clear this up once and for all, this was not a mistake. I would be the first to say that I have made mistakes in the books, but this was not a mistake. I really thought this one through. Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a cot at the time. Although you never see that scene, I wrote it and then cut it. He didn’t see it; he was too young to appreciate it. When you find out about the Thestrals, you find that you can see them only when you really understand death in a broader sense, when you really know what it means. Someone said that Harry saw Quirrell die, but that is not true. He was unconscious when Quirrell died, in Philosopher’s Stone. He did not know until he came around that Quirrell had died when Voldemort left his body. Then you have Cedric. With Cedric, fair point. Harry had just seen Cedric die when he got back into the carriages to go back to Hogsmeade station. I thought about that at the end of Goblet, because I have known from the word go what was drawing the carriages. From Chamber of Secrets, in which there are carriages drawn by invisible things, I have known what was there. I decided that it would be an odd thing to do right at the end of a book. Anyone who has suffered a bereavement knows that there is the immediate shock but that it takes a little while to appreciate fully that you will never see that person again. Until that had happened, I did not think that Harry could see the Thestrals. That means that when he goes back, he saw these spooky things. It set the tone for Phoenix, which is a much darker book.
+Ricky Lyon Nice quote! I was wondering why Harry couldn't see the Thestrals at the end of book four. It's still convenient that no one ever bumped into the Thestrals, while they were pulling the carriages, or why no-one who can see them have ever told others. But that's very nitpicky I guess.
NerdLife101 If you bump into them, and you don't see them, it's likely you'll believe in some kind of spell and move on. As for other students seeing them, not many teenagers walk around having seen someone die and grasp the reality of it. Also, when you realize you're the only one who sees them, you probably keep it to yourself so you don't sound like a fool. Case in point, the only other teenage character to see them is Luna who's considered the school reject for being an oddball.
+Ricky Lyon He was not unconcious, Quirell died and then voldemorts "spirit" or w/e knocked him unconcious, dont rmb exatly how it is in the book but in the film Quirells body is lying very dead in front of him, to say he didnt know he was dead is just waay to convenient.. As I said, I dunno if its quite as vivid in the book (i dont rmb) but in the film he is turned to stone and then falls on the ground, his head smashed to bits, if thats not dead then what is.
+Ricky Lyon So JKR is retconning her retcon? I wrote it, but then unwrote it, So it happened but since I am saying it happened but I did not tell you. that means it did not happen? No she said it happened period. I have been a fan of Star trek for over 30 years and when Gene Roddenberry was alive if he said Mr. Spock had 3 pubes on each nut, they were 4 inches and an off color of beige. Then THAT was THAT! The creator(God) of that universe had spoken. JKR is too all over the map. She is writing a new book after she said she would not write another HP book. Personally she seems to be a liar, untrustworthy and a greedy slag. So.
+Christian Znyggisen that whole spirit thing is only in the movie. In the book, as Harry is "fighting Quirrell", (trying to hold on to him while Quirrell is trying to throw him off) he faints from the pain and it is Dumbledore that got there just in time who saves him and probably watched Quirrell die.
Do you not remember what Hermione said when she was talking about the time turner and she had to stop Harry from running out and changing something that happened? "Awful things happen to Wizards who meddle with time, Harry."
harry does atually have his mothers eyes. this was explained by J.K. Rowling its to do with the shape of his eyes and they have the same sparkle in their eyes
+Nadia Snyman when I think of someone having a parent's eyes. I expect them to open their hand and have their parent's eyes rolling in the palm of their hand.
In the books, it's quite literal. In the movies, it's obviously meant to be symbolic. However, to be perfectly honest, I've got no idea why people keep discussing the films, seeing how bad they are.
In the book Lily came out first. In fact when she regurgitate from voldemort's wand, the only thing she says to Harry is "Hold on son, your father is coming"
10. If an animagus is in its animal form, it can only be seen on the map by someone who knows it is an animagus. This was a flaw in the movie, as Harry sees Peter on the map, but that was just used to talk about the story more. In the book only Lupin sees Pettigrew on the map. Also Snape goes to the shrieking shack because he said he saw Serious and Lupin on the map, who were in their human form, not animagus or werewolf form. But he couldn't see Pettigrew because he was a rat. 9. I think Lavender was always white in JK's head and they just made her black in the earlier films for diversity's sake. Then in future films when she actually mattered they went with the original vision. Also she was written quite an annoying character and was antagonized quite a bit in the sixth book. It wouldn't be great for her to be the most prominent character of color in the entire franchise, especially since two of the other few characters of color, Parvati and Padma Patil, were already made to be unimportant side romantic interests in the fourth book. It wouldn't be a great look for Warner Bros. if that became a pattern. 8. Harry didn't witness his mother's death. She threw herself between Voldemort and his crib, and as a result, shielded him from view. In the fourth book he sees the green light of the killing curse that hits Cedric. 7. JK established from the go that eyesight was beyond the help of magic. Harry wore glasses, as did Dumbledore, along with Mr. Weasley and Percy in the books. Barty Crouch Sr. had a monocle. Moody even had that replacement magical eye which, while it had some enhancements, definitely looked like very new and experimental magic at best. And as for why he didn't get Lasik, it is well established that wizards don't trust muggle medicine. 6. Yeah I don't like that they kept their voices in the later movies either, but I'm only here to defend the books. 5. Ok fine you get one point against the books whatever. 4. Again, only here to defend the books. 3. See #4 2. Ditto 1. The books did say there were laws against time travel. The time turners were all kept in the Department of Mysteries. They were extremely well monitored. Messing with time except in very explicitly stated circumstances was illegal and would get you locked up in Azkaban if you were lucky. And it was illegal for a good reason. It would be extremely easy to create a paradox and subsequent infinite time-loop. For example, if Harry went back to save his parents, they never would have died, and he wouldn't have known they needed saving, so he never would go back to save them. All in all I'm thankful to see finally that someone finding "plot holes" in Harry Potter actually read the books for once, but you still have much to learn.
JW Fan Have you ever had anyone die in front of you? It doesn't matter if your view is blocked, especially by the victim them self. I have to say that this Is a plot hole. I had my son die in front of me.
Vapid Toast He was just a baby and probably couldn't understand death, let alone remember it. Not really a plot hole by anyone who thinks about it for 2 seconds.
God this fanboys. Can't you accept the fact that the book is full of mistakes? It doesn't make it worse dude. The so called "potterheads" are the same (or worst) than the justin bieber fans.
Yes, you did leave out a glaring problem with the casting of the teenage James Potter in the Half Blood Prince - he had smooth, light brown hair instead of unruly black hair and looked nothing like Harry or the other depictions of James. Truly terrible casting choice.
and that's not true.. every movie/television series tries to cast children to look nearly as close to their adult parents as possible to make us believe that that's what the parents would have looked like when they were young..
It couldn't have been all that difficult to find a teenage actor in Britain with dark brown hair, or just dye it and give it some texture. As in the case of Radcliffe, the book described it many times as unruly and refusing to succumb to being brushed, but at least it was the right color, or close enough. They could have made some effort to have him resemble the descriptions of him in the books even a little bit, but it was way off, as bad as casting Michael Landon as Charles Ingalls; No beard??? Terrible. That whole series was terrible, but I digress. It was a bit part, and considering the attention to detail the other movies adhered to, this was ridiculous.
yeah i agree, it was a very minor role in that movie, a short scene, so they weren't exactly looking out for the best actor to play james. they didnt do that very well
Exatctly!! Well i guess only true potterheads Will understand! ;) these kind of video's are (most of the time )made by "non" real potterheads and let's be real all the time turners where destroyes BY the minstry of magic cause They where dangerous and you can only go back like one day or else you'll never existed! :) 💁
+WiseHufflepuff Doesn't explain though why he didn't see the Thestrals on the way BACK to the trains in book 4. By that point, he already saw Cedric die AND would've understood. So the plot hole stands.
One plot hole you missed is that in Harry’s third year, in the book it says that Cedric Diggory is in his fifth year. But In the next book/movie he enters the triwizard tournament, and is therefore in his seventh year. Soooo he skipped a year or something
Cedric Diggory was in his 6th year during the Triwizard Tournament. The rule was that contestants had to be 17 years old to enter the tournament, not 7th year students.
Another big plot hole is like ... where are the adults when Voldemort needs defeating? Like, why is it always three preteens/teens who get in and out of the tough situations. Are the adults just like zzzzz?
In the movie 1: The only one who was really worried about the safety of the Philosophers stone was Snape and I just guess that he either missed the small detail that Dumbledore left the school or that Dumbledore told him that he shouldn't suspect Quirrel. 2. Harry is literally the only one who could open the chamber and even he needed a lot of luck with Hermione deciding to brew the polyjuice potion in the girl's bathroom and the moaning Myrtle just happening to be the victim of the basilisc. 3. Again luck that Ron had Scabbers. 4. Well. Harry was literally the target. Now one knew that he would be tried to murder like 30000 times. 5. Connection between him and Voldemort. So basically like in the 4th movie 6. Actually there wasn't really anything. Maybe the whole battle but there was except from DA also the Order of the Phoenix so... 7. Dumbledore particularly chose Harry, Ron and Hermione to know about the Horcruxes. There shouldn't be to many people who know or Voldemort might see that his secret has been discovered and Harry needs to kill him anyways and has to die by the Hand of Voldemort. So actually very well reasoned.
First Book Harry tried to stop the theft of the stone on his own Second book only he could open the chamber of secrets Third book Voldemort never showed up Fourth book Voldemort's entire plan was to lure Harry to the graveyard to kill him Fifth book Harry once again tried to to Voldemort and save Sirius and it turned out to be a trap Sixth book he never really fought him Seventh book the trio were the only people who knew about the Horcrux's
Radcliff couldn't wear green contacts since he was allergic so Rowling said "so long as he has his mothers eyes its ok" and the actor who played Lily had blue eyes like Radcliff.
I'd like to advance one that has always bothered me and I'd love to read comments on it: Why did Harry have to be entered and protected so he could win the Tri-Wizard Tournament so he could be transported by a portkey when all he had to do was touch a portkey in Mad Eye Moody's office in Goblet of Fire? (As Dumbledore showed in 'The Order of The Phoenix, a portkey can be created on Hogwarts' grounds (oppose to apparition being prevented by its protective charms). Yet instead of Barty Crouch Jr. (disguised as Mad-Eye Moody) simply turning something in his office into a portkey and asking Harry to hand it to him to transport Harry to the graveyard, the book and movie The Goblet of Fire goes the long way around the bush and a sure thing by requiring Harry to be the first to grab the portkey in the middle of the third task's Maze?)
Another that was never explained was Order of the Phoenix's draped archway. Its purpose was never explained nor the voices heard from it. And yes I am a Potter nerd.
Ah, screw it -- one more. In the films the Weasley's home is attacked and burned in Half-Blood Prince and the family stands around watching instead of using the water charm or repair charm to save it. Then in Deathly Hallows Pt. 1, it's back to its pre-destroyed form sans any explanation or comment.
+Thom Florio the point is that Voldy/Crouch Jr wanted to avoid suspicion. And the only way to do that is to make it look like Harry died in the Tri-wizard tourment. If Fake!moody has tried any other way it would have blown Fake!Moody's cover and also maybe give warning about You-Know-Who
I understand where you're coming from. I would only counter that Crouch Jr. was at Hogwarts to facilitate Potter being sent to the graveyard so Voldemort could be made whole. If Potter died during any one of the Tasks, that would have destroyed that chance. A simple portkey in his office ("Potter, would you pass me that (object).") would have completed why Crouch Jr. was there. I think the best answer to that plot hole is that both the book and movie would be incredibly short and uninteresting without the machinations of the Tri Wizard Tournament. There'd be no red herrings to keep the reader and viewer entranced. I only wish that Rowling had set up a reason why Crouch Jr. would not be able to perform a spell to make an object a portkey. It's just one of those danglers that will always be a distraction for me.
The Ron/Peter issue is pretty easy to refute. Even if you ignore that the twins had probably never heard of Peter before Sirius broke out, that they admit they'd memorized the map and weren't using it anymore and that Ron didn't arrive with Scabbers until their 3rd year, it still leaves one question. Why would the twins use a magical map of their school to look at their younger brother sleeping a few doors down from them in the middle of the night?
Exactly. I don't think they knew the exact names and number of all the boys in Ron's year. They were in a different year. At night, he would have looked like someone who sleeps in Ron's dormitory and during the day, like a boy they don't know who follows Ron and Harry around (like Colin Creevey did).
They couldn’t use the time turner to undo the big bad stuff because that would have created a paradox since it would have stopped their future selves from wanting to time travel!
On the time turner: I would imagine that even if you had a time machine it wouldn't be possible to alter the past, as this would create an obvious paradox. For example, if Harry had gone back to save his parents that would mean his parents never, which means the entire course of his life would have been different, which means he never would have gone back to save his parents. If you did go back to change something then obviously you would either fail, or it would turn out that your going back was actually what caused the thing you were trying to change. This is what happens in Prisoner Azkaban, as Harry catching a glimpse of his future self proves that going back was always part of his timeline and he didn't actually do anything that he wasn't always going to do. This theory is a tad disturbing since it suggests there's no free will in the Harry Potter universe, but this is why it's better not to overthink fictional plots set in worlds of magic.
that is a great point! as well as the fact that in the books if it happened in the future it also happened in the past. for example Hermione, in the future used her timeturner to go back in time which effexted her in the present.
+CompetitiveHufflepuff It's probably the biggest plot hole in the books, after all how many parents/married people/siblings would have willingly given their lives so their loved person would live? Well that and the so-called "blood wards" or howver they are called actually still being in effect by harry's 17th. After all dumbledore says "as long as you call it home", harry never did call privit drive home. As to the question, the time turner dose not work like that. Not only can you not change a event that you know happened, you cant use a time turner to move forwards in time.
+Barry Gormley Other things to think about: 1. You turn it once to go back one hour. How many times would you have to turn it to go back to the death of Harry's parents? 2. Presumably it's not possible to travel forward in time, so Harry would've been stuck in that time period and would have to wait it out
+Martin Summers I'm not sure why you called it a plot hole and then acknowledged that the time turner doesn't work like that. It's not a plot hole for the reason you stated.
+FellianTheDragon you can go forward in time in the book Hermione tells Harry that people who used the time turner have sometimes accidentally killed their past/future selves
okay most of this was great fun, but you got the whole time travel thing wrong. If he went back and saved his parents. Then he never would have done it. so they would still be dead. TIME PARADOX. You can not directly change anything to your own time line. Doctor Who 101.
Ok so what about when Dobby stopped Harry and Ron from going into the Hogwarts express. They would typically go through the wall to platform 9 3/4, so it’s almost like “another space” if that makes sense. So how did Harry and Ron find the Hogwarts Express if they left from the muggle world, and the Hogwarts express left from the “wizard world” Someone who gets it, please correct me or answer because I truly want to know.
I think the only one of these that is genuinely valid and deserves some discussion is the one about Ron, Peter Pettirgrew, and the Marauder's Map. The rest are film continuity errors that came from changing directors three times
I think that a possible reason why Fred and George never brought it up was because they were waiting until later to screw with Ron if he ever got into a relationship.
Fred and George are two years older than Harry and Ron. And they didn't give the map to Harry until the beginning of his third year. So that's a span of time where they had first memorized all the secret passageways (which they admitted to, when they gave it to him), and then hid it away because they didn't need to use it. So they never saw Pettigrew on the map.
Well, of course The Chamber of Secrets doesn't show up on the map, the Marauders didn't know it was real. You can't plot something on a map you don't know about.
Juan Pablo Rueda Except we do know the Marauders CAN show on the map. Also Peter had no idea the map was anywhere around for most of his years in Hogwarts.
Having someones eyes doesn't necessarily have to mean they are the same color. Shapes and size would suffice. The way they look when you smile or emote..All these are ways you could have someones eyes without them being the same color.
demetric taylor Its very possible, The movie changed someones skin color back and forth for gods sake haha. I was just making a statement that color alone doesn't define whether or not you have someones eyes.
The Time Turner is easy to explain. Going back and stopping Harrys parents from being killed creates a time paradox. Because his parents never die they don't go back in time to save them thus they die and it goes in an endless loop.
explain then the reason why they use it in canon? buckbeak and sirius to use it for the first time both must of died thus they go back in time and save them which they do over and over again from that point on. thus creating a different timeline. so they could of used them to save his parents or anyone who ever died but rowling used it for aplot device and didnt think it through like every single one she made for the entire series . name one that was mentioned in one movie that couldn't of changed the entire series if used from the off? i literally dare you
No, that's not the point. They even asked JKR "does he have to have green eyes?" and she said "no, he just has to have the same eyes as Lily" ... so while Daniel has blue eyes, they could have casted an actress with the same colour of eyes to play Lily...
The reason was because of allergies. The adult actress that plays Lily does have the same colour eyes as Daniel Radcliffe. its only the young Lily that doesn't. At that point you would cast the best actress not someone with the same colour eyes for the sake of accuracy. Also, the girls eyes are clearly darker and putting blue contacts in would look weird.
and what is more or less funny, is that Lily has different colored eyes in different ages. the actress that plays her in adult age has green eyes and young Lily has brown eyes. they kinda messed it up a lot.
"does he have to have green eyes?" and she said "no, he just has to have the same eyes as Lily" How do you define "same eyes" if not by color?My brain is melting..Is it like "Oh you have tall eyes,just like your mother" or like "Oh you got fat eyes Harry,just like your mother" or something like that ? Is it height ? Width ? Weight ? Height? did they both have a lazy eye that stuck out and everyone remembered ? I needs to know.
You can still have the same eyes as your mother/father/whoever even if the color is different. Having the same eyes just means the same shape, same look or expression, why would you concentrate on what color it is? It makes no sense, because everybody tells me I have my mother's eyes, even though my eyes are green and hers are golden.
If they had used the time turner to save Harry's parents then their world would have been a different place, he wouldn't be the boy who lived, he wouldn't be so famous and he possibly would never meet hermione and Ron and then they couldn't go back in time together to save his parents and the whole thing collapses
Exactly, which is why in the books, j.k Rowling showed everything to be one existing timeline, and every change a person has made to the timeline, has already happened, so if Voldemort is still alive, then anyone trying to stop him failed.
it'd probably be like harry potter and the cursed child and just turn intoo a twisted version of the famous dc storyline flashpoint except it would be called potterpoint?
Harry would have met Ron and Hermione, they all went to the same school and attended classes together. If he was still Gryfindor he would still have shared a room with Ron even, although I feel he would have been in Slitherin instead
"Time-Turners that are issued by the Ministry of Magic have an Hour-Reversal Charm placed onto them. They have a limit of traveling back a maximum of five hours, which is the determined safety limit to the person and the fabrics of the time. The Ministry had a limited quantity which makes them not easily replaceable."
I think the thestrals plot hole has a simple but much deeper explanation: Harry has witnessed his mother's death when he was just a small year old boy and as we learn later on in the books, he has no real memory of it, just flashes of the spell that killed her. He was too little to understand what he just saw, whereas when Cedric was killed, he was old enough to understand death. Just because we see something, doesn't mean we understand it, the Harry Potter world has never been THAT simple, nor has the real world, and I think this is what prevented him from seeing the thestrals before, the fact that he saw his mother die, but didn't REALLY see it, because he didn't understand it. But that's just what I think!
Carlotta Lo Giacco I agree with you i mean harry was only 1 when his parents were killed i mean its amazing he even remembers the green flash and the flying motor bike let alone his parents murdered
Some more possible plot-holes. 1. The Pensieve reveals people's memories, but Dumbledore doesn't use it to help Sirius Black show the world that he was not in league with Voldemort, did not betray the Potters, and that Peter Pettigrew was the traitor. Nor does Dumbledore use it to show Harry's memory to prove to the ministry that Voldemort had indeed returned. Yes, I suppose people can change their memories like what Slughorn did to his memory, but I get the impression that one can tell when a memory has been tampered with. 2. Snape can read minds. But why didn't he read Quirrell's mind when he was trying to steal the Philosopher's Stone? And why didn't he read Sirius's mind and learn that he was not a criminal? 3. When Snape was a Death Eater and inside Voldemort's circle, was Pettigrew also known in the group as a Death Eater? If so, then shouldn't Snape have warned Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix group that Pettigrew could not be trusted?
None of those are plot holes. 1. Memories aren't used as court evidence because they can be tampered with and easily altered. For the same reason veritaserum isn't used because a person can lie and genuinely believe that what they are saying is true, like a poligraph test. 2. Voldemort is extremely skilled in both legillimency and occulmency and the two of them could never read each other's minds. 3. People only discovered Pettigrew betrayed Lily and James AFTER Prisoner of Azkaban and by the Goblet of Fire everyone knew he was evil.
"Our wands share the same core. We can wound each other, but not kill." -Voldemort Ok, but hear me out big lad: You don't have to kill Harry to kill him. -Sectumsempra causes massive lacerations to the victim. Hit H Potts in the head, neck, or anywhere on the left side of his body and he's cooked like a Christmas Goose. -Body-binding curse and drop him in Hogwarts lake -Wingardium Leviosa and drop him from a great height
The Time Turner can't change time, it can only give you more of it, you can only go back, every turn equals an hour, and it already happened. That's why you can't change time with them.
+Ben Rhodes That's not true at all that it cannot change time as it brought a creature back from the dead. You can do it for a hipogriph, you can do it for parents.
+Ben Rhodes Gotta read the books again but in the movie, I think Buckbeak does die. They see him get executed right before going into the whomping willow
It was the elder wand in particular that was so quick to change hands. Most ordinary wands would have a stronger allegiance to the wizard it originally chose, but the elder wand is a symbol of power and ambition. It doesn't accept failure, and will gladly side with whoever wins it. As for time travel, it's shown in the prisoner of azkaban that time cannot be changed by the time turner. Everything the characters do when they go back is either something that we already saw happen from a different angle, or something that was unclear. It was useful for Hermione because she wasn't trying to change anything, she just needed to be in two places at once to attend all her classes.
the polyjuice potion one, just...no. the filmmakers obviously decided to use the voices of harry, hermione and ron to make it easier to distinguish them and make them sound familiar.
+Amalie Kahr-Højland EXACTLY! Snape's whole story was about madly being in love with Lily even after her death! Even in his last words he mentioned her. This is a dumb plot hole in the 10 dumbest Harry Potter plot holes!
+Blair C the death of Cedric was emotionally much stronger for him who saw it. You can technically can see a lot of death in everyday's life, but most of them aren't that shocking or important to the person. Only far later he would know what it means to die. Do you shed tears for someone you hardly know? It was his mother but technically she was stranger when it comes to Memories. No normal human can remember their memories when they were babies.
+Eli V In my opinion even after Cedric's death. He still.couldn't accept that that he was dead. It takes some time to fully accept that someone is not there anymore. It's pretty common that you would for example cook breakfast for two people even though your partner is long gone.
The movies take creative liberty. Harry didn't see his parents die, he heard his mom scream. He also didn't see Quirrel die because he passed out. He woke in the infirmary believing he was dead.
A thing that always pisses me off on stuff like this, is when people don't take into account missing information. There could be limits we aren't told, some things may work differently than we expect, etc. Sure, anything that happens in the books/movies can be taken as fact, but at no point is everything told about something.It's all just vague. Sometimes an explanation is needed, so they tell it, and sometimes it's not, so they don't tell it.
ABSOLUTE BIGGEST PLOTHOLE:
Harry watches his parents die as he is a toddler, roughly 2 years old (already standing in the crib), and in the first scene of the first film he is dropped off by hagrid as a baby, obviously younger than he is when he watched his parents die, making it impossible for him to 1. see his parents die or 2. be taken away by hagrid AFTER the murder.
WHAAAAAAAATTTT
+theLOULesgacataqgcat lel He is a baby of about a year, nowhere near 2 years - have you never seen a human baby?!
+theLOULesgacataqgcat lel Technically, Harry was a year and 7 months old when his parents died, give or take two days. He would *DEFINITELY* not be a baby when he was dropped off at the dursley's. He would be more of a toddler.
That's not a plothole, it's a movie mistake. Just like Harry's parents in the books are like 20, but they look like they're 40 in the movies.
+SolasRuinedMyLife Harry's birthday is July 31st 1980. Voldemort killed Harry's parents on October 30th 1981. He was given to the Durselys the next day. He'd have been a year and 3 months old, still a baby I'd say.
You forgot to mention Harry throwing the f****** elder wand before he repairs his own in the movie, making him wandless...
+Efi lol
...?
In the books they were in Dumbledore's study. And Harry repaired his own wand with the elder wand.
midget cook I know. That's why I said in the movie. It's only a plothole in the movie.
+Kaisa Watson no, he had the wand he took off draco
me:
why did harry try to catch his hogwarts letter instead of just picking one off the ground?
Coz of film effect xD
😂😂😂😂😂😂
ikr and he was a seeker i-
I just think about this everytime when i see that scene
He got caught up in the moment and also the angle the letters were coming from
"Hogwarts is the safest place on earth." -Hagrid
Year 1: Voldemort
Year 2: Bassilisk
Year 3: Dementors
Year 4: All sorts of crazy shit
Years 5-7: Voldemort again
Conclusion: Hagrid is out of his god damn mind
Not to mention you can open a door to a giant three headed dog... or an ogre.
Jesse Schoedel The chamber of secrets was opened when he was young and he had his wand snap. If I was him, the words hogwarts and safe would never go together m.
Jesse Schoedel I not saying he did but if I was at a school where the chamber was open and I was framed, I would never use the word safe to describe the school.
also do not forget the students themselves suffer from infighting between the pure bloods and mud bloods which is further worsened by the fact that one house is completely devoted to a fanatical pure blood and is the to look spot for recruiting new death eaters, then there is all the shit in the forest, the tri-wizard cup is hosted there now and then, one of their most popular sports involves flying who knows how many feet off the air and PRAYING someone catches you if you fall, the defense against the dark arts teachers are all crazy with the exception being Lupis and Snape but Lupis was a werewolf and Snape was secretly with voldimort so other than those most the other teachers have turned out to be nut jobs or death eaters/servents of voldimort. trust me even without the beasts and constantly changing school there is still much more to be worried about.
There’s younglings in hogwarts
The luck potion. Biggest plothole in the books/movies.
How?
+David Hepple justave it all the time and your set for life
well then they could just carry it with them until shit hits the fan
+JAMES POWNALL It's extremely difficult to make so good luck with that
yeh, but you know, akio and all(sorry for the awful spelling)
Time is a weird thing. If they went back an stopped everything bad from happening, then they'd never had gone back to fix those, because they were already fixed, which would mean those problems wouldn't get fixed, so they'd go back in time to fix them, and start the cycle all over again.
You're right! Time travel is so confusing to think about.
actually if they went back in time and fixed the problems, the problems would never occur leaving no need to back and fix them because they were already fixed
+Jedimaster Yorhacken Actually, it depends on your theory of time. If you go as time is one line or series and we only go back in that series, then yes you create a paradox of sorts, though as Miles says, they wouldn't have existed in the first place, and so that and your motivation for going to the past would both disappear.
However, if you go by the multiple worlds theory, then at the point that they stop the bad things, they branch off the time line in a slightly different manner.
Don't forget that you need to turn that thing by the hour. If you want to go back like 10 years you need to turn it atleast 87650 times. And nobody got time for that! + to get back to your original time you need to live through those 10 years and that would just fuck up time even more.
+Jedimaster Yorhacken In the Harry Potter universe (at least the one in the movies) it's established that every wizard who travels through time is already a fixed point. Ergo, if it didn't happen already, you can't travel back in time to make it happen.
THE EYE THING. I mean really if you can CG a dragon you can make a girl's eyes blue for a brief flashback.
It's really not that simple
Yes, or tell lily to wear contacts for god sake. Like i get it if daniel was unable, but a fully grown woman with few minutes screen time(?)
They're bright green in the books, stop making pointless plotholes out fo something that isn't canon. 🙄
young lily: brown eyes
old lily: green eyes
harry: blue eyes
...
*GeNeTiCs*
My guess is they ran out of gingers
A wizard did it...
🤣🤣🤣
If I remember, blue and green eyes are caused by the same gene so I guess it could pass but anyone could correct me if I'm wrong. And also, I've heard of babies being born with blue eyes which gradually darkened and became brown but I don't know if it can go the other way round..
"Harry, You have your mother's eyes"
How about the fact that nobody ever bumped into a Thestral? That always bothered the fuck out of me.
😂😂😂
We just have to assume that people subconsciously avoid them.
But it's a question that someone in the movies *really* should have asked.
+AngryPrawn How do you know nobody did ? Maybe some people did, then what ? We only know that no one just went and randomly told Harry.
+AngryPrawn I'm reading the books now, and I'm pretty certain that the Thestrals are something JK thought up between books, and it was too late to go back and fix the end of Goblet of Fire, when the carriages roll up and take them away, and Harry sees nothing. I can accept that baby Harry's witnessing of his parent's death doesn't count because baby and memories, but seeing Cedric die most certainly does, and he rode in a horseless carriage after that event.
Maybe the Thestral's are avoiding the people? lol
Harry couldn't see the thestrals because in order to see them you have to see death and have an understanding of it. Harry was a baby so he didn't understand what was happening.
+Grace Phillips To the top
+Grace Phillips I know
+Grace Phillips you have to understand death in order to see the thestrals, Rowling made that clear in the 5th book, Order of the Pheonix. Plus, Harry was just a baby, so he didn't really remember. It took me a while to figure that out.
*slaps myself* THAT explain's it!
+Grace Phillips Didnt harry see Cedric die, mug
Everybody keeps mentioning that Radcliffe was having reactions to the contacts, ok cool. But why wouldn't they recast his mother in the final movie for Snapes flashback to match Radcliffe's eyes
King Savage97 Exactly. Why hire a brown eyed actress to play young Lily. People are saying quality of acting matters more than choosing an actress with the right eye color but young lily didn’t even have any lines!
Or why not change the eye colour to green with a little CGI?
@@mauricefrerejean8645 How has nobody bloody said this. It's trivial to change her eye colour, they just didn't notice it.
or have THEM wear the contacts. but i personally think that eye color ain't anything major
@@StefunnyStrange she literally says "thats mean severus " and then later "hi I'm lily" so she did have lines lol but she didnt even say them that good.
They could have found a better lily with BLUE EYES
4:59 let’s take a moment to appreciate that Voldemort’s cry is in the same key as the accompaniment music 😂
not an accident
Let's not.
harry always says voldermort killed Cedric but it was peter pettigrew
Murder by proxy. Voldemort told Pettigrew to "kill the spare" so Voldemort would still be the murderer assuming wizarding laws considers proxy murders.
Wormtail used voldemort's wand... so when the Priori Incantatem came into effect, it would make sense for cedric to come back..
just like Charles Manson
Yep, Pettigrew killed him. Voldemort couldn't at that moment because he was a shrivelled foetus
Yeah
The reason he couldn't see thestrals from the beginning is because, when Lily died, he wasn't yet old enough to understand what death was. It's a cognitive thing. Cedric was the first person he saw die when he could actually understand what death was.
well...what about professor quirrel then? he even killed him himself didnt he?
philipp fuhrmann Harry never saw Quirrell die. He blacked out and was rushed to the hospital wing by Dumbledore. Quirrell died after Harry blacked out, when Voldemort abandoned him to die. The movie completely botched that.
harry doesnt remember his parents dying what he sees from his parents getting murdered is through voldemorts eyes because apart of his soul lives inside him
That's one stupid argument. And it's also flawless.
Leonidas Pereira The other argument available is that he does not remember his parents death because he was a newborn
Something interesting for me is the amount of pupils at hogwarts. If there are roughly 5 kids to a dorm room (Harry, Ron, Neville, Dean, Seamus). That would make roughly 40 kids per year. That’s only 280 pupils in the school!
This always really bothered me. Only 40 new children each school year? It suggests the magic people are dying out.
If you look at the tables in the great hall then yes this might make sense. But if you looked at the Quidditch pitch it looks like there’s way more than 280 pupils...
But also let’s not forget this is just one school in Great Britain. I’m assuming wizards don’t come by the dozens in this universe
@@harrypottah8889 more than just students come to watch…….
The dumbest plot hole to me was Hagrid telling them to "follow the spiders", which Ron and Harry did, which led them to Hagrid's pet spider, Aragog. Aragog the spider had valuable information that could clear Hagrid of the false charges against him. Aragog the spider knows that Ron and Harry are trying to save Hagrid, and can do so now that Aragog has given them this information.......but then Aragog allows his children to attack and try to kill Ron and Harry anyway. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in terms of plot. They just had the spiders chase Ron and Harry because it looked dramatic. Things like this greatly undermine the story.
Aragog was old and blind, and it was made abundantly clear that he could barely keep his nightmarish spawn from killing Hagrid (presumably by reminding the world's greatest justification for bug spray at every opportunity that they literally wouldn't exist without Hagrid); he was also fairly blunt about how misguided Hagrid was about the friendliness of giant spiders. He'd've probably had a fight for dominance (which he simply couldn't have won) on his hands if he'd tried defending two children that had no connection to him.
That happened in the book and Arogog explains that while he loves Hagrid screw him ....we hungry
"why can't the time turner stop every bad thing from happening?"
Everyone who has read Cursed Child: hahahahahahahahahaha
Lol I was gonna say same thing
Yes exactly
or Back to the future
Canadian Crafter since this is a harry potter video i thought my example was pretty relevant but yes to back to the future! :)
Honestly 😂
The books clearly explain that you can't mess with things that have already happened when you use a time turner. Time is a complicated thing and whoever uses the time turner is asked to be extremely careful. Hermione didn't even let herself stumble across herself when she was using it for classes, and that's what she warns Harry about when he thinks of capturing Peter Pettigrew in POA when he is by Hagrid's hut. (I don't remember where that happened in the book).
And also, Hermione hitting Harry with a pebble to make them leave Hagrid's Hut is wrong! Hermione knows to be more careful than that!
+VatsalaMolly So how do they save buckbeak? Either he dies and they change something that happened or buckbeak is saved before they travel back meaning saving him preserves what happened as per the explaination., which is impossible as they save him.
+WirelessFawn3 I think Buckbeak never died in the first place tbh
+xJProductionsx they cut off its head....
+teh evilengineer noooo....
+WirelessFawn3 Well technically he never died. Cuz as they were hiding, buckbeak was being saved.
Daniel Radcliffe tried to put green eye contacts in but it gave him an elergic reaction .
Pari D we all make mistakes
EDIT: Sorry if I took it the wrong way. I'm sure you weren't trying to be rude
that literally doesn't even matter. They could have hired an actress for lily that had daniel's blue eyes.
@@kzbw Or we can all just get over it and agree that "having someone's eyes" doesn't necessarily have to refer to color but could also, possibly, just refer to shape.
Lone Starr Their eyes weren’t the same shape either. Their eyes couldn’t be any more different if they tried.
that is still absolutely no excuse for how it ended up because young lily has brown eyes, old lily has green eyes and harry blue.. they fucked that up big time..
i mean they could have just cgi'ed their eyes to match.. not that hard nowadays..
Harry was to young to remember the death of his parents, confirmed by Rowling, because, pretty much no one can remember what happens to them as a baby.
We are are talking about the movies in here, and he has flashbacks of that moment! So he does remember
Didn't he get tucked under the crib just before his mum died?
ROCKanimeloves there is a theory that he doesn’t remember, and that the dementor flashback of Lily’s scream is in fact Voldemort’s worst memory (the memory of him dying), not Harry’s
I remember being 12 months. Couldnt walk yet, only stand. Brief flashback of the room and crib.
He was 15 months
In particular with traumatic events one can recall them very early, sometimes even nontraumatic ones
PS just to remind you that Harry is constany having foken flashbacks to it
@@ROCKanimeloves In the book he has memories too.
From screams to elaborate memories of his mother speaking to him
I think Lavender Brown was made white when she became Ron's love interest because she was kind of a nutcase and people would have freaked out if the only significant black character was portrayed that way.
Engineering Challenges oi what about dean
What about him?
Are you implying that dean was a significant character? He had maybe 5 lines in the whole movie series...
TannerJ815 Okay but the lines don't count.. he was always behind Ron and Hermione when they were together 😂
I'd say he was a present character, but I'd also argue that being in a bunch of background shots doesn't make him significant ;)
Oh common, he does have his mothers eyes. She has eyes, he has eyes, theyre shiny and round.
lol
I've read that in the first movie he actualy wears/or tries to wear (too lazy to check) green contacts, but they were so uncomfrotable, that they decided to skip on that.
+Sławomir Nadolny he was allergenic.
i lold
Edmund Pollock I'm glad :)
Not all wands become loyal to the person who disarmed it. That's only for the elder wand.
I don't think so
Draco’s wand
@@MagnusTNT Did you even read the books? The whole point of the elder wand is that it becomes loyal to whoever beat the previous owner.
@@thegreatfusili4673 nope. The whole point of the elder wand is that it is the most powerful wand ever created. In the books AND in the movies Ollivanders explains to Harry (in Will's house) that wands can change allegiance depending on a wizard's defeat.
not true hahah
Draco's wand became loyal to Harry after he took it from Draco
But lily as a child has brown eyes...
whyjordie THE FILMS HAVE IT WRONG
She too was allergic to the green contact lenses that she was supposed to use (just like Harry)
@@jacobsejer4527 You could have at least cast someone with blue eyes then....
Astralaris Well She was already paid to be Lily, so it would cost them a new actor. Besides J K Rowling loved little Lily, it her was choice to use her
@@jacobsejer4527 yeah but then why not just cgi the eyes of young and old lily to match harrys or for that matter all 3 of them so they are green and match the books?
Here's the thing, Harry had no concept of what death was when he saw his mum and dad die, he did not know what he was seeing, JK Rowling has clarified this up
I agree 100% with that but why didn't harry see the at the end of the 4th book
Forget the witnessing of his parents. The movies mostly foobar this one because Harry witnesses Quirrell die in the movie whereas Harry blacks out in the book.
On one hand, I can't totally blame the movies because this is what happens when you start a movie franchise before all the books have been finished. On the other hand, they could have found a way explain it or deviate from the book to keep continuity. For example, they could have changed it so that you can only see Threstals if you witnessed the death of a loved one.
Was right about to write this!
He saw Quirrell die in the first book/film though, when he was old enough to work out what he'd seen.
Bradley Cooke-Catcheside No he didn't, he saw him writhe in pain, he passed out before he died.
Most of these aren't plot holes... They're just movie continuity errors. And the thestral thing was already explained by Rowling.
Actually, pretty much all of the book "plot holes" we're already explained by Rowling satisfactorily...
This is my problem with these "plot hole" videos on youtube. Most of the people don't even understand what a plot hole is. They're mostly just minor continuity errors, or unexplained changes due to behind-the-scenes studio reason (eg. changing actresses, etc).
A plot hole is a major issue that should actually prevent the story from moving forward. Minor issues that kinda bug you are not the same as plot holes. The color of Harry's eyes is irrelevant.
not as bad and indiana jones. If he wasnt in the film, then the nazis would have done exactly the same thing. and still killed themselves. there was no need for them to intervene
yeah the nazis killed themselves, but Indy did save a beautiful woman from nazi torture
"....unless you tell us they exist in the book, I don't care what's in Pottermore"
I'm a huge Potter fan but I agree with Adam on this, don't write 7 books with plot holes then say "Well, I thought about it and xyz, because I said so."
Its a cop out, but I understand they were making movies while she was still writing books, contracts were signed and a whole generation were hooked on her characters.
Still.....
I always thought it was a bit odd that in the Philosopher's Stone, Harry, Hermione, Ron and Draco were punished for being out of bed after dark.. by serving detention being out of bed after dark.. in the Forbidden Forest no less.. especially considering there were already suspicions about who killed the unicorns there. Plus, Hagrid thinks it's a great idea to split up and let first years Harry and Draco wander around a dangerous forbidden forest by themselves, facing Voldemort with basically hardly any magic experience.
Lily does come out of the wand first! She says “your farther is coming, he wants to see you.”
Another one: students go to buy they school robes before they are sorted into the four houses. The problem is that in the films these robes look differently for each house.
their*
+Tiffany Granger Yes!
+Tiffany Granger they buy generic robes before, and when they get sorted they start wearing the robes from their houses
+Tiffany Granger well this is unlikely but we know dumbledor can change the decorasions of the cafatery so maiby he can add the logo to the robe's thay boght+Eleanor Brinkman why do thay need to by generic robes if thay are given new one's as soon as thay get sorted
johann orri it literally shows them wearing generic hogwarts robes in the train at the beginning of the first movie
The eye ones actually is because Daniel Radcliffe was allergic to the contacts.
+Stephanie Gutknecht And again... Why didn't they use another actress? Or maybe SHE could used an eye contact, right?
+Daniel Meurer It states explicitly in the books that his eyes are green. So his mother having blue eyes isn't very helpful.
+Stephanie Gutknecht khm khm 5 minuten harry podcast nr 5 ? ;) Do you even lüft bro ?
+Adamo1618 it would be. it would change it from plot-hole to (intentionally out of necessity) changing something from the books.
+Adamo1618 it would be. it would change it from plot-hole to (intentionally out of necessity) changing something from the books.
OK as a diehard Potterhead I can't just walk away.
Most of these """plot holes""" only exist in the movies. And since JK didn't write those movies, I barely even consider them canon. You definitely can't consider them plot holes of the Harry Potter universe.
9. Lavender Brown's race - casting choice, not a plot hole
6. Polyjuice voices - weird editing choice to help the audience keep track of the characters' true identities that inevitably would lead to inconsistencies. Obviously not in the books.
5. Priori Incantatem - Lily comes out first in the book... in the movies they come out at the same time... don't even know why this is on this list.
4. Hogwarts grounds - Developments in set design, honestly not complaining, they were gorgeous, and Hogwarts exists in the readers' consciousness anyway.
3. Lily's eyes - Again, dumb casting choice. Don't mistake the adaptors' stupidity for the creator's negligence.
2. Expelliarmus - By no means a plot hole in the book, the movies constantly changed their minds on what "disarming" actually meant. In the books it was always a clear definition: the wand leaves the disarmed's hand.
The "plot holes" that still exist in the books can be explained with some pretty decent theories that have plenty solid evidence.
10. There are several decent theories for the Peter/Ron thing. One is that if a person on the map is in Animagus form, only a person who knows they are an Animagus can see their true identity on the map. Another is that the map is specifically designed to never reveal any of the Marauders - as it is the Marauders' Map, and they literally invented it so they could sneak around the school undetected, it makes perfect sense. Having created such an intricate piece of magic in the first place, it also makes sense that they would be magically talented enough to add this security precaution.
8. You can't see Thestrals if you've just 'witnessed' death. Harry was a baby when he saw his mother killed. His memory is of nothing but a bright green light - he never understood it was death he was witnessing, so he doesn't feel that he's seen death. Also, when he saw Quirrell die he didn't fully understand at the time that he was actually dying, and he may have actually passed out before he died completely. It may also be because he felt no remorse about Quirrell's death - perhaps you can only see Thestrals if you are haunted by the death you've seen. This makes sense, as Thestrals serve more of a metaphorical purpose, especially as they arrive at a time in Harry's life when he is truly dealing with death for the first time. I wouldn't be surprised if remorseless, cold-blooded killers like Voldemort have never seen a Thestral, as he has never been haunted by any death he's witnessed.
7. Another trivial point that I don't understand why it's even on the list. Harry never asked anyone to fix his eyesight. He was a little preoccupied, you know, saving the world. It probably never even considered to him, having grown up in the muggle world.
1. Honestly, I'm annoyed when people keep bringing up this "plot hole". For one thing, it can all be explained by the fact that the Harry Potter universe is not this lawless dystopian hellscape where people can get their hands on Time Turners whenever they want to do whatever they want. They are under immensely strict guard by the Ministry, and it's actually super-significant that they only allowed McGonagall to issue Hermione a Time Turner for her homework - there was a fuck tonne of paperwork and whatnot to ensure that Hermione would only be using it for her school work, and not anything else, because (READ THE BOOK): *AWFUL THINGS HAPPEN TO WIZARDS WHO MEDDLE WITH TIME, HARRY.* Seriously, just watching your basic sci-fi flick like Back to the Future or Doctor Who should show you why time travel was so heavily regulated - if people got their hands on Time Turners, intending to just go back and change one thing for selfish reasons, the Ministry has no way of knowing or controlling what dangerous things could crop up in the present.
I mean, are you seriously suggesting that a Harry Potter story where they abuse time travel to the point where they have to escape a dystopia only to return to an entirely unchanged present so that the entire story was useless and inconsequential is a good idea? Dude. They tried that. It did not go down well.
You are wrong on two points, which as an avid Potter fan myself, I feel I must inform you of.
1. James comes out of the wand first. He tells Harry his mother is coming, and that she wants to see him. Go back and re-read it.
2. Harry had no idea Peter Pettigrew was an animagus, and therefore would not have seen him on the map if the first theory was the case. The second theory is only possible if the Marauders are able to still see each other on the map, and the map recognises Harry as a direct blood-relation to James and therefore an honorary Marauder.(In both of these, I am talking about the movie, not the book. Both theories are plausible when Harry is not the one to see Pettigrew on the map.)
Also, while many of the things in the list are not plot holes in the books, they definitely are plot holes in the movies. This video does conflate the two way too much, though. I personally would have preferred a video that looks solely at plot holes the movies or at plot holes in the books.
Ok fine I'll give you the wand thing. To be honest I don't see it as a plot hole because it's a fairly trivial mistake and doesn't affect anything else in the story.
With the map, both of the theories I raised were just that - theories.
That being said, Harry did NOT see Pettigrew on the map, as long as we are going off of the books, so that theory's still airtight. I think once you bring the movies into any conversation about plot holes, it just becomes chaos, because they're so inconsistent. I don't consider them canon, so I don't consider them plot holes of the Harry Potter story.
I too would have preferred a book/movie separation, because they're soooo different. A plot hole list about the movies would go on for hours, though.
I definitely agree that the wand thing is not quite a plot hole, it just bothered me how many people seem to be trying to pretend that mistake didn't happen. It's not a significant one, but it still was an error.
As for the map, I agree that in the books it isn't a plot hole and there are plausible theories for it. I just mention it because the movie absolutely does turn it into a plot hole by having Harry be the one to discover Pettigrew on the map. I do agree this is not a plot hole of the books, but it is one of the more irritating plot holes in the movies in my opinion (since the majority of the plot holes on this list are movie-based, I don't mind this one being mentioned). I also just find the marauder's map to be fascinating and would enjoy more elaboration on it.
Honestly, I just try to hold the books and the movies as separate entities from each other, and I wish lists like this would do the same. Jumping back and forth between the two is chaotic.
Oh absolutely, the movies are riddled with plot holes, for so many reasons - eg each director brought new inconsistencies, they left out crucial explanations, they changed stuff for dramatic effect. To be perfectly honest, I love that scene in the movie PoA where Harry sees Pettigrew on the map - it's really tense and pushes the story forward nicely. But of course it creates plot holes.
Couldn't agree more - the movies and books need to be looked at separately. As far as adaptations go, they're more faithful than most, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty, they're completely different stories.
The order of which his parents come out of the want was actually changed after Rowling herself acknowledged her mistake in that one. Later editions have it the right way, my old first edition doesn't.
Daniel Radcliffe was allergic to the contact lenses, so they did try.
I think what he meant was (even tho Daniel couldn't have green eyes) tthey could've cast a Lily Evans with blue eyes so the whole "you have your mothers eye's" thing would still fit. It creates a huge plot hole because Snape loved Lily and the "green eyes" comment was used a lot throughout the books
States in the books that the Time Turner can only go back a couple days. This list was actually full of holes. I counted 3 of these being actual plot holes lol.
Please do not drag Cursed Child into this...
Also time works in a closed loop in harry potter. You cannot change anything in the past that didnt already happen.
Cursed Child is also effectively published fan fiction. Specifically it's the aftermath of bad Voldie/Bellatrix slashfic.
+Yes Fran It is also garbage and not official and terrible.
actually ms. j.k. Rowling made it the official 8th installment of the original 7
Here's something that always bugged me. If Harry has been a Horcrux his whole life, why didn't he die when the basilisk fang stabbed his arm??
He would have, if Fawks hadn't saved him.
I think he means the horcrux part.
For a Horcrux to be destroyed it has to be damaged beyond repair. As Harry was the Horcrux and Fawkes healed him, the Horcrux remained intact.
Tea Break That makes sense actually
Ahh :D good answer
the plot hole i don't understand is "the five exceptions to Gamp's law of transfiguration"
it is impossible to transfigure stuff into food, but it is possible to transfigure stuff into ANIMALS?
there are several classes where the students transfigure a goblet into a bird or whatever.
in the 7th book Harry, Hermione and Ron have trouble getting food - couldn't they just transfigure a piece of wood into a rat and roast it? THEY LEARNED IT AT SCHOOL IN LIKE THE 1ST YEAR
Scabbers....
It is possible to transfigure things into food but not permanently. If you transfigure a leaf into a sandwich and eat the sandwich the sandwich will turn back into a leaf because transfiguration isn’t permanent.
yes so you turn a rock into an apple hah
You missed one big one: the Vanishing Cabinet Malfoy uses in 6. It’s arch is explained in the books, but in the movies, it just conveniently pops into existence in a magic room we don’t know how he knew about, and also connects to a dark magic shop for some reason that Malfoy apparently knew somehow. Yay cutting out seemingly small details for the movies.
They gave Harry contacts but Daniel had a reaction to them and couldn't keep wearing them
Was gonna comment this :D
What, you mean they gave Harry contacts in the books?
Naj Adamu in the movies, harry had different eyes than in the book, they were gonna make Daniel wear contacts, but he had an allergic reaction.
ya but they could have made the actress that played lily match Daniel radcliffe's eyes
Did you miss the video? The plot hole was Snape saying he has his mother's eyes...when he does not.
Daniel Radcliffe had an alergic reaction to green contacts so that's why he doesn't have his mother's eyes lol
They could've used C G Eye
damn took me a while. im seriously dumb
Then using a different actress for his mom would've been the obvious solution.
PJ Klingler nah, im pretty sure the books described his eyes as green a few times (unless I got Mandela Effect'd again)
yea her eyes were already described as emerald green
The whole using Expelliarmus spell as a key signature spell grated on me when I first watched the films. Because there's another spell they could've easily used to replace its over usage: Stupefy. A spell that stuns the opponent. As we know, Expelliarmus only disarms your opponent of their weapon, which in theory, should make the opposing foe more vulnerable to an upcoming attack (unless of course they can do non-verbal magic and so losing their wand doesn't make any sort difference anyway). But no, the spell suddenly becomes godlike in power in the films when J.K Rowling created tonnes of spells in the books, most of which were never in the films or if they were, were not mentioned by name (I think Levicorpus is one - the spell James uses on Snape in the memory Harry pokes into in film/book 5). Though magic in general was just not shown in the films as it was in the books and there were so many inconsistencies in what magic does/looks like in the films anyway.
Non-verbal magic still requires a wand.... Just means they don't need to say the spell out loud. I think you meant wandless magic.
I think even in books LILLY came out first of Voldemort's wand as she had wishpered to Harry that his father is coming too before James told him about the cup
Actually, some of the comments here say that in the first edition of the book, it was James who came out first, but Rowling realized she'd made a mistake and told the publisher to correct it in later editions.
I just figured out David tenant is in the Harry Potter movies
Bro....
really you never knew David tennet was in Harry potter
who?
+SunFlightx The Doctor.
+Canti Sama oh snap. Well played SunFlightx, Well played
if Harry Potter used the time turner to save his parents it would take him 13 years to return to the present. I think the time turner could only reverse time
They could still use it to save Snape or Dumbledore
+TheApexPlayer then the dark lord wouldn't been defeated if Dumbledore didn't by the hand of snape the dark lord would not trust snape fully and snape wouldn't been able to tell Harry off his secret.
+TheApexPlayer I think that made sense
+TheApexPlayer I think they were all destroyed at the end of OOTP when they go to try and rescue Sirius and end up fighting the Death Eaters.
+DoctorPepperPlays It doesnt though.The Time turner pulls you back in time and this means there will be 2 Harry's and the Harry that travelled back in time would have to go incognito for life,since the Harry in the past would never use the Time turner since the purpose for using the time turner does not exist.Also ,his parents,or anyone else, wouldnt die but he would never be able to interact with them normally since there is already another version of him.
Harry didn't even see Cedric Diggory die, in the books it said that Harry had his eyes closed, saw green light shine through his shut eyelids, and then opened his eyes and saw Cedric dead. Even if Harry hadn't seen his mom die, he wouldn't be able to see the thestrals.
Or how about him seeing Quirrel die? Wouldn’t that allow him to see the Thestrals?
@@ablosch2452 Harry didn't see Quirrel die in the book.
Has this question been answered yet:
At the end of the school year the average house points are around 400. That low number doesn't make sense as students get 5-10 points for good answers in classes. Loosing points usually happens for bad behaviour and students are always very annoyed by that, means they don't loose that much (imagine the hate between each other when they would loose points for wrong answers). So 400 points could be a result at the end of each day lol
Christopher Columbus catched the magic atmosphere of the school much better. I really hated these new architectural additions later !
Lol
+Razorback73 Not my main language
The later additions made parts of it more realistic and accurate to similar styles. Also they provided more and better places and situations for some scenes in the movies.
+Nukledus
i loved the new architectural additions..
they make no sense ofc but they look good
+Nukledus I honestly wish columbus would have directed all the films
daniel radcliff was ment to wear contacts for the movies but it fucked with his eyes or some shit
+Baked Not Fried And wearing contacts for 4 years might not have been a lot of fun when you're a kid/teen. But yeah, they could have decided to make Lily's eyes blue in the movies, so I get the movies point.
+NerdLife101 yeah, the older version of lily had blue-ish eyes but the younger one had browny/green ones
You can also inherit the shape and configuration of a parent's eyes but a different color. My eyes are like my father but brown rather than blue like his.
+Baked Not Fried When Snape said Harry has his mothers eyes I interpreted it as them bearing a resemblance. Different pairs of eyes side by side in black and white still look different. As long as there was some even minor physical resemblance I think it works.
+Baked Not Fried , think they were trying to fix the coloration using lighting effects, filters and postproduction tricks. Unfortunately, the different directors probably all had their desire for tone in the movies and it never worked out well.
You forget one!!
No one ever turned to the page no 394!
Rohit Raghuvanshi disobedient children
Wrong Snape used his to turn Ron's book to that page
@@vegetalover9297 yeah, but that means Snaoe turned to page 394, the students didn't.
I have read a rather plausible fan theory about the Pettigrew problem: the Marauders, being Animagi themselves and wanting it to remain a secret, cast a spell on the map that made it impossible for the user to see an Animagus unless he/she was aware that the person was one. That would also explain why no one noticed Rita Skeeter.
Also, the Weasley twins only used the map for their mischiefs, not to check on the others. Plus, there are hundreds of people moving in Hogwarts at the same time.
1) The map only shows the territory of Hogwarts
2) Well, what can you do, if they already included the character and later it was described of how she looked?
3) Actual plothole
4) Actual plothole
5) Exactly, no problem in the books
6) Actual plothole
7) Actual plothole
8) Radcliffe was allergic to contacts, so he couldn't wear it, and he was handpicked by Rowling.
9) Actual plothole
10) If you go back to save Harry's parents, it wouldn't work, because they would survive, which would mean Harry never had to return to save his parents, which means they didn't survive.
1) Exaclty Ron had Scabbers around all the time including at Hogwarts they no doubt would have tried to see their brother multiple times with the map so they should have seen Peter. 2) She was never described in the books that's why it makes no sense for them to change her race as soon as she becomes a major character they would still have been in line with the books. 10) It's just the fact that they never even addressed that question or any others while holding the most powerful item ever.
Eric Wolf 1) Well, yeah. 2) She was described in Half-Blood Prince. 10) It's basic logic.
" If you go back to save Harry's parents, it wouldn't work, because they would survive, which would mean Harry never had to return to save his parents, which means they didn't survive."
Time-paradoxes are still plottholes.
the time turner one was actually addressed in the third film in a way as hermione clearly stated "bad things happen to wizards who meddle with time". wizards had gone mad using the time turner too much and thus, it was only supposed to be used in the correct way. time-paradoxes are always plot holes because really, if you change what happened, then it could change EVERYTHING else. harry would not have been the same person he was, therefore, it's possible neither would hermione and ron or ANYONE else for that matter. thinking logically. nothing would have been the same and i for one, would have been pissed to read the 7th book only to find out that they used the time turner, went back and killed voldemort as a kid and then nothing in the 7 books had ever happened.
"If you go back to save Harry's parents, it wouldn't work, because they
would survive, which would mean Harry never had to return to save his
parents, which means they didn't survive."
Actually this logic is completely flawed. You could say the same thing about saving Sirius. Dumbledore comes up and tells Harry that Sirius is locked in a cell waiting for death. Harry goes back in time, prevents Sirius from being captured, which means Harry never had to return to save Sirius, which means Sirius got killed.
Harry Potter is the only one wearing glasses at Hogwarts. That's weird.
Flitwick
+BetaChri5 No, Professor McGonagall wears them in Film 2 and Professor Trelawney in Film 3 and Book 3.
There is moaning Myrtle too
+BetaChri5 DUMBLEDORE!!!!
Among the students, k
0:41
"I am very brave, and very very stupid."
Me: This is true.
lol
"When the old man in robes grabbed his wand, Harry regretted enrolling in Catholic school" -Frankie Boyle
Booooooo that SUCKS
"'Show us where Dumbledore touched you', said the judge. 'Show us on the doll'"
Daniel Radcliffe DID have "his mother's eyes" in the first movie, but the coloured contact lenses he wore hurt his eyes, so they stopped using them.
PREACH IT
I was looking for that comment, thank you!!!
I have an explanation for all these plot holes! : nargles
How the fuck is Harry wearing glasses a plot hole?
That is just as dumb as saying it was a plot hole for Jean-Luc Picard to be bald in Star Trek because "we could totally have 'cured' baldness by then."
TheSqoad I haven’t bothered to watch the video so I’m not sure what they suggest on here... but I’ve always wondered why he wears glasses too... if wizards can invent a way to “regrow” bones and breath underwater then surely they can figure out a way to fix simply fix his near sightedness lol
yeah sure but no self respecting captain would do that. Plus i dont want to see picard with hair, that would be weird
on a more serious note, bad eyes are a legitimate detriment, balding isnt.
Chris Jones but you're also missing the fact that Harry was muggle raised, and most of the wizarding population wouldn't know that, therefore Harry wouldn't know about such a thing cuz he has no logic at all, in the books or movies, and the wizarding population would just assume the the saviour of the Wizarding world would know of such things. It could also be a family trait, like the untidy hair, or Harry might have just wanted to have something that both him and his dad shared, bad eye sight.
Remember this, Harry is stupid, so all this points would be valid.
khaleel khan It still doesn’t really account for why other witches or wizards have them though. Unless in all their progress, they’ve never found a way to fix eye sight
Chris Jones or it might just be a type of ritual that isn't well known or is expensive to conduct. The ritual would technically have to reconstruct you eye, which is a very delicate muscle, so it would only make sense to be expensive.
The eye isn't like a bone, if magic could just heal you up like that, I don't really think horcruxes would be needed lol, just carry a few potions and u would be near immortal.
Also, you forgot that going back thirteen years, you would stay back thirteen years.
In number 3, the reason he doesn't have his mothers eyes is because the contacts caused an allergic reaction in Daniel Radcliff's eyes, and it was too difficult to constantly use CGI.
Understandable and ok, but they really should have used a blue eyed actress to play his mother...
Ri Ka I agree, if Harry Potter couldn't have green eyes, they should have made Lilly's eyes blue
She does have blue eyes. This is an image of the actress, Geraldine Somerville. When they found out that Daniel was allergic to contacts, J.K. Rowling said it's fine if Harry's eyes aren't green as long as the actress who played his mother had the same colored eyes as him. Here is the image: s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/68/8f/65/688f65b1ab6458de18459019d26cf289.jpg
Those eyes look pretty blue to me.
+Caitlyn Lewis And yet they chose a child who has brown eyes to play her in the movie that has the actual line "You have your mother's eyes"
Caitlyn Lewis It's true. Rowling said it wasn't such a big deal for her if their eyes weren't green but blue. In the flashbacks it's pretty obvious she's got blue eyes,but apparently not everyone is actually looking at the details
J.K Rowling's answer to the Thestral thing: Everyone has said to me that Harry saw people die before could see the Thestrals. Just to clear this up once and for all, this was not a mistake. I would be the first to say that I have made mistakes in the books, but this was not a mistake. I really thought this one through. Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a cot at the time. Although you never see that scene, I wrote it and then cut it. He didn’t see it; he was too young to appreciate it. When you find out about the Thestrals, you find that you can see them only when you really understand death in a broader sense, when you really know what it means. Someone said that Harry saw Quirrell die, but that is not true. He was unconscious when Quirrell died, in Philosopher’s Stone. He did not know until he came around that Quirrell had died when Voldemort left his body. Then you have Cedric. With Cedric, fair point. Harry had just seen Cedric die when he got back into the carriages to go back to Hogsmeade station. I thought about that at the end of Goblet, because I have known from the word go what was drawing the carriages. From Chamber of Secrets, in which there are carriages drawn by invisible things, I have known what was there. I decided that it would be an odd thing to do right at the end of a book. Anyone who has suffered a bereavement knows that there is the immediate shock but that it takes a little while to appreciate fully that you will never see that person again. Until that had happened, I did not think that Harry could see the Thestrals. That means that when he goes back, he saw these spooky things. It set the tone for Phoenix, which is a much darker book.
+Ricky Lyon Nice quote! I was wondering why Harry couldn't see the Thestrals at the end of book four.
It's still convenient that no one ever bumped into the Thestrals, while they were pulling the carriages, or why no-one who can see them have ever told others. But that's very nitpicky I guess.
NerdLife101 If you bump into them, and you don't see them, it's likely you'll believe in some kind of spell and move on.
As for other students seeing them, not many teenagers walk around having seen someone die and grasp the reality of it. Also, when you realize you're the only one who sees them, you probably keep it to yourself so you don't sound like a fool. Case in point, the only other teenage character to see them is Luna who's considered the school reject for being an oddball.
+Ricky Lyon He was not unconcious, Quirell died and then voldemorts "spirit" or w/e knocked him unconcious, dont rmb exatly how it is in the book but in the film Quirells body is lying very dead in front of him, to say he didnt know he was dead is just waay to convenient.. As I said, I dunno if its quite as vivid in the book (i dont rmb) but in the film he is turned to stone and then falls on the ground, his head smashed to bits, if thats not dead then what is.
+Ricky Lyon So JKR is retconning her retcon? I wrote it, but then unwrote it, So it happened but since I am saying it happened but I did not tell you. that means it did not happen? No she said it happened period. I have been a fan of Star trek for over 30 years and when Gene Roddenberry was alive if he said Mr. Spock had 3 pubes on each nut, they were 4 inches and an off color of beige. Then THAT was THAT! The creator(God) of that universe had spoken. JKR is too all over the map. She is writing a new book after she said she would not write another HP book. Personally she seems to be a liar, untrustworthy and a greedy slag. So.
+Christian Znyggisen that whole spirit thing is only in the movie. In the book, as Harry is "fighting Quirrell", (trying to hold on to him while Quirrell is trying to throw him off) he faints from the pain and it is Dumbledore that got there just in time who saves him and probably watched Quirrell die.
"Used to love"? Snape never stopped loving lily
Do you not remember what Hermione said when she was talking about the time turner and she had to stop Harry from running out and changing something that happened? "Awful things happen to Wizards who meddle with time, Harry."
harry does atually have his mothers eyes. this was explained by J.K. Rowling its to do with the shape of his eyes and they have the same sparkle in their eyes
+Nadia Snyman Was what I was thinking. When I see a person that has their mother's or father's eyes I notice the shape first.
exactaly
+Nadia Snyman when I think of someone having a parent's eyes. I expect them to open their hand and have their parent's eyes rolling in the palm of their hand.
+Shaden0040 Hot Shots!
+Nadia Snyman They specifically mention them both having green eyes _several_ times though......
The you have your mothers eyes line is more symbolic than literal
...No it isn't?
In the books, it's quite literal. In the movies, it's obviously meant to be symbolic. However, to be perfectly honest, I've got no idea why people keep discussing the films, seeing how bad they are.
+Krazy Lobster get out
*bite*Krazy Lobster
+thecreatorofthedark NNNNNOOOOOOOOO
In the book Lily came out first. In fact when she regurgitate from voldemort's wand, the only thing she says to Harry is "Hold on son, your father is coming"
It was fixed in later printings of the book.
10. If an animagus is in its animal form, it can only be seen on the map by someone who knows it is an animagus. This was a flaw in the movie, as Harry sees Peter on the map, but that was just used to talk about the story more. In the book only Lupin sees Pettigrew on the map. Also Snape goes to the shrieking shack because he said he saw Serious and Lupin on the map, who were in their human form, not animagus or werewolf form. But he couldn't see Pettigrew because he was a rat.
9. I think Lavender was always white in JK's head and they just made her black in the earlier films for diversity's sake. Then in future films when she actually mattered they went with the original vision. Also she was written quite an annoying character and was antagonized quite a bit in the sixth book. It wouldn't be great for her to be the most prominent character of color in the entire franchise, especially since two of the other few characters of color, Parvati and Padma Patil, were already made to be unimportant side romantic interests in the fourth book. It wouldn't be a great look for Warner Bros. if that became a pattern.
8. Harry didn't witness his mother's death. She threw herself between Voldemort and his crib, and as a result, shielded him from view. In the fourth book he sees the green light of the killing curse that hits Cedric.
7. JK established from the go that eyesight was beyond the help of magic. Harry wore glasses, as did Dumbledore, along with Mr. Weasley and Percy in the books. Barty Crouch Sr. had a monocle. Moody even had that replacement magical eye which, while it had some enhancements, definitely looked like very new and experimental magic at best. And as for why he didn't get Lasik, it is well established that wizards don't trust muggle medicine.
6. Yeah I don't like that they kept their voices in the later movies either, but I'm only here to defend the books.
5. Ok fine you get one point against the books whatever.
4. Again, only here to defend the books.
3. See #4
2. Ditto
1. The books did say there were laws against time travel. The time turners were all kept in the Department of Mysteries. They were extremely well monitored. Messing with time except in very explicitly stated circumstances was illegal and would get you locked up in Azkaban if you were lucky. And it was illegal for a good reason. It would be extremely easy to create a paradox and subsequent infinite time-loop. For example, if Harry went back to save his parents, they never would have died, and he wouldn't have known they needed saving, so he never would go back to save them.
All in all I'm thankful to see finally that someone finding "plot holes" in Harry Potter actually read the books for once, but you still have much to learn.
JW Fan
Have you ever had anyone die in front of you? It doesn't matter if your view is blocked, especially by the victim them self. I have to say that this Is a plot hole. I had my son die in front of me.
Where did you get that animagus/map information from?
I thought there was a theory that only marauders or children of marauders can see the marauders on the map
Vapid Toast He was just a baby and probably couldn't understand death, let alone remember it. Not really a plot hole by anyone who thinks about it for 2 seconds.
God this fanboys. Can't you accept the fact that the book is full of mistakes? It doesn't make it worse dude. The so called "potterheads" are the same (or worst) than the justin bieber fans.
Yes, you did leave out a glaring problem with the casting of the teenage James Potter in the Half Blood Prince - he had smooth, light brown hair instead of unruly black hair and looked nothing like Harry or the other depictions of James. Truly terrible casting choice.
Sorry about the autocorrect flubs. I meant glaring, not gloating.
Because Harry didn't look EXACTLY like his dad , no one ever really does
and that's not true.. every movie/television series tries to cast children to look nearly as close to their adult parents as possible to make us believe that that's what the parents would have looked like when they were young..
It couldn't have been all that difficult to find a teenage actor in Britain with dark brown hair, or just dye it and give it some texture. As in the case of Radcliffe, the book described it many times as unruly and refusing to succumb to being brushed, but at least it was the right color, or close enough. They could have made some effort to have him resemble the descriptions of him in the books even a little bit, but it was way off, as bad as casting Michael Landon as Charles Ingalls; No beard??? Terrible. That whole series was terrible, but I digress. It was a bit part, and considering the attention to detail the other movies adhered to, this was ridiculous.
yeah i agree, it was a very minor role in that movie, a short scene, so they weren't exactly looking out for the best actor to play james. they didnt do that very well
Harry/people has/have to be able to accept and understand death to see thestrals :D
Exatctly!! Well i guess only true potterheads Will understand! ;) these kind of video's are (most of the time )made by "non" real potterheads and let's be real all the time turners where destroyes BY the minstry of magic cause They where dangerous and you can only go back like one day or else you'll never existed! :) 💁
yay! wise hufflepuff,!
+WiseHufflepuff Doesn't explain though why he didn't see the Thestrals on the way BACK to the trains in book 4. By that point, he already saw Cedric die AND would've understood. So the plot hole stands.
i agree wisehufflepuff! you have to be aware enough for the death to sink in.
+WiseHufflepuff harry killed quirrell in the first book, did he still not understand death at that point?
One plot hole you missed is that in Harry’s third year, in the book it says that Cedric Diggory is in his fifth year. But In the next book/movie he enters the triwizard tournament, and is therefore in his seventh year. Soooo he skipped a year or something
Cedric Diggory was in his 6th year during the Triwizard Tournament. The rule was that contestants had to be 17 years old to enter the tournament, not 7th year students.
Another big plot hole is like ... where are the adults when Voldemort needs defeating? Like, why is it always three preteens/teens who get in and out of the tough situations. Are the adults just like zzzzz?
But that is every darks lords weakness, plucky teenagers.
In the movie 1: The only one who was really worried about the safety of the Philosophers stone was Snape and I just guess that he either missed the small detail that Dumbledore left the school or that Dumbledore told him that he shouldn't suspect Quirrel.
2. Harry is literally the only one who could open the chamber and even he needed a lot of luck with Hermione deciding to brew the polyjuice potion in the girl's bathroom and the moaning Myrtle just happening to be the victim of the basilisc.
3. Again luck that Ron had Scabbers.
4. Well. Harry was literally the target. Now one knew that he would be tried to murder like 30000 times.
5. Connection between him and Voldemort. So basically like in the 4th movie
6. Actually there wasn't really anything. Maybe the whole battle but there was except from DA also the Order of the Phoenix so...
7. Dumbledore particularly chose Harry, Ron and Hermione to know about the Horcruxes. There shouldn't be to many people who know or Voldemort might see that his secret has been discovered and Harry needs to kill him anyways and has to die by the Hand of Voldemort.
So actually very well reasoned.
First Book Harry tried to stop the theft of the stone on his own
Second book only he could open the chamber of secrets
Third book Voldemort never showed up
Fourth book Voldemort's entire plan was to lure Harry to the graveyard to kill him
Fifth book Harry once again tried to to Voldemort and save Sirius and it turned out to be a trap
Sixth book he never really fought him
Seventh book the trio were the only people who knew about the Horcrux's
It’s young adult fiction, which generally makes the kids the heroes.. so the adults have to be more or less “useless” for that to work
because there aren't really any adults able to fight him except dumbledore.. maybe grindelwald but he was wandless in a prison and voldy killed him..
Radcliff couldn't wear green contacts since he was allergic so Rowling said "so long as he has his mothers eyes its ok" and the actor who played Lily had blue eyes like Radcliff.
The actress who played Lily had brown eyes
Princess-of-the-Pen No she didn't, Look her up "Geraldine Somerville"
+Marcus Aurelius as a child in the movie she has brown eyes
Grunge Girl I think they might've put contacts on her but if she did have brown eyes then ya that's a fuck up lol
Marcus Aurelius lol yeah that's pretty fucked up
Like how tf her eye color changed during the years
I'd like to advance one that has always bothered me and I'd love to read comments on it: Why did Harry have to be entered and protected so he could win the Tri-Wizard Tournament so he could be transported by a portkey when all he had to do was touch a portkey in Mad Eye Moody's office in Goblet of Fire? (As Dumbledore showed in 'The Order of The Phoenix, a portkey can be created on Hogwarts' grounds (oppose to apparition being prevented by its protective charms). Yet instead of Barty Crouch Jr. (disguised as Mad-Eye Moody) simply turning something in his office into a portkey and asking Harry to hand it to him to transport Harry to the graveyard, the book and movie The Goblet of Fire goes the long way around the bush and a sure thing by requiring Harry to be the first to grab the portkey in the middle of the third task's Maze?)
Another that was never explained was Order of the Phoenix's draped archway. Its purpose was never explained nor the voices heard from it. And yes I am a Potter nerd.
Ah, screw it -- one more. In the films the Weasley's home is attacked and burned in Half-Blood Prince and the family stands around watching instead of using the water charm or repair charm to save it. Then in Deathly Hallows Pt. 1, it's back to its pre-destroyed form sans any explanation or comment.
I'll stop now. (And great video, by the way!)
+Thom Florio the point is that Voldy/Crouch Jr wanted to avoid suspicion. And the only way to do that is to make it look like Harry died in the Tri-wizard tourment. If Fake!moody has tried any other way it would have blown Fake!Moody's cover and also maybe give warning about You-Know-Who
I understand where you're coming from. I would only counter that Crouch Jr. was at Hogwarts to facilitate Potter being sent to the graveyard so Voldemort could be made whole. If Potter died during any one of the Tasks, that would have destroyed that chance. A simple portkey in his office ("Potter, would you pass me that (object).") would have completed why Crouch Jr. was there. I think the best answer to that plot hole is that both the book and movie would be incredibly short and uninteresting without the machinations of the Tri Wizard Tournament. There'd be no red herrings to keep the reader and viewer entranced. I only wish that Rowling had set up a reason why Crouch Jr. would not be able to perform a spell to make an object a portkey. It's just one of those danglers that will always be a distraction for me.
The Ron/Peter issue is pretty easy to refute. Even if you ignore that the twins had probably never heard of Peter before Sirius broke out, that they admit they'd memorized the map and weren't using it anymore and that Ron didn't arrive with Scabbers until their 3rd year, it still leaves one question.
Why would the twins use a magical map of their school to look at their younger brother sleeping a few doors down from them in the middle of the night?
Cosmo 11 Thank you.
Exactly. I don't think they knew the exact names and number of all the boys in Ron's year. They were in a different year. At night, he would have looked like someone who sleeps in Ron's dormitory and during the day, like a boy they don't know who follows Ron and Harry around (like Colin Creevey did).
Cosmo 11 but scabbers was Percy's rat first...
because its their brother and they're looking for a way to annoy him or tease him.
They couldn’t use the time turner to undo the big bad stuff because that would have created a paradox since it would have stopped their future selves from wanting to time travel!
On the time turner: I would imagine that even if you had a time machine it wouldn't be possible to alter the past, as this would create an obvious paradox. For example, if Harry had gone back to save his parents that would mean his parents never, which means the entire course of his life would have been different, which means he never would have gone back to save his parents. If you did go back to change something then obviously you would either fail, or it would turn out that your going back was actually what caused the thing you were trying to change. This is what happens in Prisoner Azkaban, as Harry catching a glimpse of his future self proves that going back was always part of his timeline and he didn't actually do anything that he wasn't always going to do. This theory is a tad disturbing since it suggests there's no free will in the Harry Potter universe, but this is why it's better not to overthink fictional plots set in worlds of magic.
that is a great point!
as well as the fact that in the books if it happened in the future it also happened in the past. for example Hermione, in the future used her timeturner to go back in time which effexted her in the present.
+CompetitiveHufflepuff It's probably the biggest plot hole in the books, after all how many parents/married people/siblings would have willingly given their lives so their loved person would live? Well that and the so-called "blood wards" or howver they are called actually still being in effect by harry's 17th. After all dumbledore says "as long as you call it home", harry never did call privit drive home.
As to the question, the time turner dose not work like that. Not only can you not change a event that you know happened, you cant use a time turner to move forwards in time.
+Barry Gormley Other things to think about:
1. You turn it once to go back one hour. How many times would you have to turn it to go back to the death of Harry's parents?
2. Presumably it's not possible to travel forward in time, so Harry would've been stuck in that time period and would have to wait it out
+Martin Summers I'm not sure why you called it a plot hole and then acknowledged that the time turner doesn't work like that.
It's not a plot hole for the reason you stated.
+FellianTheDragon you can go forward in time in the book Hermione tells Harry that people who used the time turner have sometimes accidentally killed their past/future selves
okay most of this was great fun, but you got the whole time travel thing wrong. If he went back and saved his parents. Then he never would have done it. so they would still be dead. TIME PARADOX. You can not directly change anything to your own time line. Doctor Who 101.
R G O 2
Ummmm did you read what you wrote? Or maybe you could explain it clearly?
That is if you go with the Multiverse theory. Then you have movies like Terminator, where you can actually change a single timeline.
That made zero sense
"I was saying 'Boo-urns'"
Ok so what about when Dobby stopped Harry and Ron from going into the Hogwarts express. They would typically go through the wall to platform 9 3/4, so it’s almost like “another space” if that makes sense. So how did Harry and Ron find the Hogwarts Express if they left from the muggle world, and the Hogwarts express left from the “wizard world”
Someone who gets it, please correct me or answer because I truly want to know.
I think the only one of these that is genuinely valid and deserves some discussion is the one about Ron, Peter Pettirgrew, and the Marauder's Map. The rest are film continuity errors that came from changing directors three times
I think that a possible reason why Fred and George never brought it up was because they were waiting until later to screw with Ron if he ever got into a relationship.
Fred and George are two years older than Harry and Ron. And they didn't give the map to Harry until the beginning of his third year. So that's a span of time where they had first memorized all the secret passageways (which they admitted to, when they gave it to him), and then hid it away because they didn't need to use it. So they never saw Pettigrew on the map.
the marauders map only showed hogwarts
Well, of course The Chamber of Secrets doesn't show up on the map, the Marauders didn't know it was real. You can't plot something on a map you don't know about.
Juan Pablo Rueda Except we do know the Marauders CAN show on the map. Also Peter had no idea the map was anywhere around for most of his years in Hogwarts.
Having someones eyes doesn't necessarily have to mean they are the same color. Shapes and size would suffice. The way they look when you smile or emote..All these are ways you could have someones eyes without them being the same color.
+Eridanus didn't it say his eyes were green though so this is a mistake on the movie's part
demetric taylor
Its very possible, The movie changed someones skin color back and forth for gods sake haha. I was just making a statement that color alone doesn't define whether or not you have someones eyes.
Eridanus good point
this is exactly what i think whenever ppl say that. very well put
I always thought they meant he had his mother's compassion.
boy i love me some overused royalty free music
The Time Turner is easy to explain. Going back and stopping Harrys parents from being killed creates a time paradox. Because his parents never die they don't go back in time to save them thus they die and it goes in an endless loop.
explain then the reason why they use it in canon? buckbeak and sirius to use it for the first time both must of died thus they go back in time and save them which they do over and over again from that point on. thus creating a different timeline. so they could of used them to save his parents or anyone who ever died but rowling used it for aplot device and didnt think it through like every single one she made for the entire series . name one that was mentioned in one movie that couldn't of changed the entire series if used from the off? i literally dare you
@@starmaster4016 Why are you so angry about a childrens fantasy book?
Harry hadn't had Lily's eyes because he was allergic to contacts.
No, that's not the point. They even asked JKR "does he have to have green eyes?" and she said "no, he just has to have the same eyes as Lily" ... so while Daniel has blue eyes, they could have casted an actress with the same colour of eyes to play Lily...
The reason was because of allergies. The adult actress that plays Lily does have the same colour eyes as Daniel Radcliffe. its only the young Lily that doesn't. At that point you would cast the best actress not someone with the same colour eyes for the sake of accuracy. Also, the girls eyes are clearly darker and putting blue contacts in would look weird.
and what is more or less funny, is that Lily has different colored eyes in different ages. the actress that plays her in adult age has green eyes and young Lily has brown eyes. they kinda messed it up a lot.
"does he have to have green eyes?" and she said "no, he just has to have the same eyes as Lily" How do you define "same eyes" if not by color?My brain is melting..Is it like "Oh you have tall eyes,just like your mother" or like "Oh you got fat eyes Harry,just like your mother" or something like that ? Is it height ? Width ? Weight ? Height? did they both have a lazy eye that stuck out and everyone remembered ? I needs to know.
You can still have the same eyes as your mother/father/whoever even if the color is different. Having the same eyes just means the same shape, same look or expression, why would you concentrate on what color it is? It makes no sense, because everybody tells me I have my mother's eyes, even though my eyes are green and hers are golden.
If they had used the time turner to save Harry's parents then their world would have been a different place, he wouldn't be the boy who lived, he wouldn't be so famous and he possibly would never meet hermione and Ron and then they couldn't go back in time together to save his parents and the whole thing collapses
Exactly, which is why in the books, j.k Rowling showed everything to be one existing timeline, and every change a person has made to the timeline, has already happened, so if Voldemort is still alive, then anyone trying to stop him failed.
Plus, I thought it was explained you can only go so far back, unless I was thinking of something else..
it'd probably be like harry potter and the cursed child and just turn intoo a twisted version of the famous dc storyline flashpoint except it would be called potterpoint?
Hugo Ago go 🎷 wuaua
Harry would have met Ron and Hermione, they all went to the same school and attended classes together. If he was still Gryfindor he would still have shared a room with Ron even, although I feel he would have been in Slitherin instead
This is what happens when someone makes a series about magic, and they don't explain how magic works.
"Time-Turners that are issued by the Ministry of Magic have an Hour-Reversal Charm placed onto them. They have a limit of traveling back a maximum of five hours, which is the determined safety limit to the person and the fabrics of the time. The Ministry had a limited quantity which makes them not easily replaceable."
I think the thestrals plot hole has a simple but much deeper explanation: Harry has witnessed his mother's death when he was just a small year old boy and as we learn later on in the books, he has no real memory of it, just flashes of the spell that killed her. He was too little to understand what he just saw, whereas when Cedric was killed, he was old enough to understand death. Just because we see something, doesn't mean we understand it, the Harry Potter world has never been THAT simple, nor has the real world, and I think this is what prevented him from seeing the thestrals before, the fact that he saw his mother die, but didn't REALLY see it, because he didn't understand it. But that's just what I think!
Carlotta Lo Giacco I agree, just because we as the viewers see it, it doesn't mean Harry can remember it just flashes, exactly what you said
Carlotta Lo Giacco I agree with you i mean harry was only 1 when his parents were killed i mean its amazing he even remembers the green flash and the flying motor bike let alone his parents murdered
but, harry also killed quirrell in the first book didn't he? with the whole hands thing?
What about the fly Ron probably swatted at some point? He must have understood death by then, and he clearly would have seen it die.
The carriages were still horseless to Harry at the end of Goblet of Fire.
snape: you have ur mothers eyes
Harry: what?
snape: MY LIFE IS A LIE
Expelliarmas almost always *disarms* the opponent, the only time it *doesn't* (that I can think of) is in goblet of fire when Cedric does it to krum.
Some more possible plot-holes.
1. The Pensieve reveals people's memories, but Dumbledore doesn't use it to help Sirius Black show the world that he was not in league with Voldemort, did not betray the Potters, and that Peter Pettigrew was the traitor. Nor does Dumbledore use it to show Harry's memory to prove to the ministry that Voldemort had indeed returned.
Yes, I suppose people can change their memories like what Slughorn did to his memory, but I get the impression that one can tell when a memory has been tampered with.
2. Snape can read minds. But why didn't he read Quirrell's mind when he was trying to steal the Philosopher's Stone? And why didn't he read Sirius's mind and learn that he was not a criminal?
3. When Snape was a Death Eater and inside Voldemort's circle, was Pettigrew also known in the group as a Death Eater? If so, then shouldn't Snape have warned Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix group that Pettigrew could not be trusted?
None of those are plot holes.
1. Memories aren't used as court evidence because they can be tampered with and easily altered. For the same reason veritaserum isn't used because a person can lie and genuinely believe that what they are saying is true, like a poligraph test.
2. Voldemort is extremely skilled in both legillimency and occulmency and the two of them could never read each other's minds.
3. People only discovered Pettigrew betrayed Lily and James AFTER Prisoner of Azkaban and by the Goblet of Fire everyone knew he was evil.
"I am very brave and very, very stupid."
Basically a Gryffindor in a nutshell.
Wtf
Haha, so true and I am not a Gryffindor
Caroline Mcgovern What? Lol. How do you know you are not a Griifindor did you go too Hogwarts and get sorted by that tellikinetic hat? Wtf lol??
Kevin McNeela Pottermore quiz.
Ice Cream Cookie Oh OK cool. I'll go try it.
maybe lavender brown got the same disease as Michael Jackson.
Jesse Weller As far as I know it's a skin disease called Vitiligo.
But they actually did re-cast the role of Lavender Brown.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Cleverrrrrr...
Michael Jackson didn't have a disease numbnuts
he did he was black but a skin condition turned his skin white
"Our wands share the same core. We can wound each other, but not kill." -Voldemort
Ok, but hear me out big lad: You don't have to kill Harry to kill him.
-Sectumsempra causes massive lacerations to the victim. Hit H Potts in the head, neck, or anywhere on the left side of his body and he's cooked like a Christmas Goose.
-Body-binding curse and drop him in Hogwarts lake
-Wingardium Leviosa and drop him from a great height
The book I'm writing is about magic. So I'm going to use "A wizard did it" as a way of covering up my plot holes.
The Time Turner can't change time, it can only give you more of it, you can only go back, every turn equals an hour, and it already happened. That's why you can't change time with them.
+Ben Rhodes That's not true at all that it cannot change time as it brought a creature back from the dead. You can do it for a hipogriph, you can do it for parents.
Katreena Kirkland No, Buckbeak never died in the first place, they just thought he did
+Ben Rhodes so what happened to buckbeak in first time?
The same thing that happened the second time, nothing changed but Harry and Hermione's perspective of events. Time didn't change
+Ben Rhodes Gotta read the books again but in the movie, I think Buckbeak does die. They see him get executed right before going into the whomping willow
These are my thoughts the entire video
Wrong
no no no, you're wrong
Wrong
Wrong
no
you're wrong
Wrong
no, you're wrong
*cringe*
Wrong
Wrong
Your comment was just... wrong.
If it hadn't been for your "These are my thoughts the entire video" comment I would've thought you were listing Trump quotes from the debates..
Queue the idiotic Trump fans.
It was the elder wand in particular that was so quick to change hands. Most ordinary wands would have a stronger allegiance to the wizard it originally chose, but the elder wand is a symbol of power and ambition. It doesn't accept failure, and will gladly side with whoever wins it.
As for time travel, it's shown in the prisoner of azkaban that time cannot be changed by the time turner. Everything the characters do when they go back is either something that we already saw happen from a different angle, or something that was unclear. It was useful for Hermione because she wasn't trying to change anything, she just needed to be in two places at once to attend all her classes.
the polyjuice potion one, just...no. the filmmakers obviously decided to use the voices of harry, hermione and ron to make it easier to distinguish them and make them sound familiar.
"Snape sees a bit of someone he used to love in Harry"
...
Used to.
USED TO!?
What the fuck do you think he means by "always"
+Amalie Kahr-Højland EXACTLY!
Snape's whole story was about madly being in love with Lily even after her death! Even in his last words he mentioned her. This is a dumb plot hole in the 10 dumbest Harry Potter plot holes!
Baby Harry doesn't comprehend the concept of death, that's why Cedric's death was the first time Harry actually experienced the death of someone.
+Blair C the death of Cedric was emotionally much stronger for him who saw it. You can technically can see a lot of death in everyday's life, but most of them aren't that shocking or important to the person. Only far later he would know what it means to die. Do you shed tears for someone you hardly know? It was his mother but technically she was stranger when it comes to Memories. No normal human can remember their memories when they were babies.
+KittiChan1 yes he does
+Eli V In my opinion even after Cedric's death. He still.couldn't accept that that he was dead. It takes some time to fully accept that someone is not there anymore. It's pretty common that you would for example cook breakfast for two people even though your partner is long gone.
+KittiChan1 but didnt harry see quirrel die? i mean, harry kinda accidentally killed him
+KittiChan1 That's just your opinion on a fictional charecter. Unless JK Rowling actually said that, you're wrong.
The movies take creative liberty. Harry didn't see his parents die, he heard his mom scream. He also didn't see Quirrel die because he passed out. He woke in the infirmary believing he was dead.
A thing that always pisses me off on stuff like this, is when people don't take into account missing information. There could be limits we aren't told, some things may work differently than we expect, etc. Sure, anything that happens in the books/movies can be taken as fact, but at no point is everything told about something.It's all just vague. Sometimes an explanation is needed, so they tell it, and sometimes it's not, so they don't tell it.