Question: When Hulk has the Infinity Gauntlet, Tony tells Hulk to snap back everybody that Thanos killed. Why not just snap Thanos and his army first and then snap half the world's population back to life? If Thanos had been snapped first, then they wouldn't have to worry about him anymore.
Phaneron
13th Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Answer: It's important to remember Tony's motivation as well. He was reluctant to even try because he now had a daughter and didn't want to risk losing her or Pepper. When he reminds Banner, he tells him not to try anything other than bringing everyone back in the present because he doesn't want him to rewrite history, potentially removing his daughter.
Answer: No guarantees they'd get two goes at it. They likely figured it was more important to bring everyone back and hope they can take on Thanos conventionally. Although if I remember rightly, they have no idea Thanos is back before they snap anyway - last they heard they'd chopped his head off, end of story.
5th Aug 2019
Groundhog Day (1993)
Question: This might be a silly question but it did puzzle me just a little bit. The old man in the film, when Phil first starts to care for him he starts referring to him as Dad and Pops. Is there supposed to be any actual relation between them, or is he just referring to him as this as sort of a kind title?
Answer: I think he is just using them as terms of elderly respect. It would be pretty callous even for Phil to completely disregard the homeless man at the beginning of the film if he was some sort of relative. The old man also does nothing to indicate a shared history between them.
It was a common term that was often used in the early-to-mid 20th century where a kindly, older man would affectionately be referred to as "Pops." In movies of that era, there was often a minor character referred to in this way, particularly if no-one knew his name (i.e. the stage doorman, the custodian, etc).
2nd Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: If Captain America had to go back to return the infinity stones to balance the timeline, would he not have to go back to before Black Widow died to return the Soul Stone?
Answer: No before Black Widow died the soul stone was still there, he had to get it back after it was taken, so after Black Widow died.
I think the poster meant he would go back to the time he knew Black Widow and Hawkeye were aiming for, or a bit before for safety, then go there and wait until Black Widow died and Hawkeye got the stone, and then return it. It would be hard for him to watch, but then he would know when the right time was.
Right. But you also have to think that, having witnessed the events, and then seeing that the Red Skull is the guardian, that would have been a damn interesting scene to watch. Does Cap try bargaining with the Red Skull to return Black Widow to life after giving the stone back? On the other hand, the Ancient One's explanation was that the flow of time occurs simply because the stones are in the universe. I don't think it mattered where they are. She only wanted the time stone back because of how it was tied to the Sanctum. So really, Cap probably could have just thrown the stone in a ditch somewhere and been done with it. It also raises a question about the nature of Vormir as the home of the stone. We see the other stones were more or less fashioned into artifacts and out and about. This implies that they too were in some sort of temple in their raw stone form before being found, seized and manipulated into a real-world application. So does Vormir even have a mechanism for receiving the stone back once it's been claimed? And what is the soul stone's solo power, anyway? Reading people's fates like a crystal ball?
I don't think the red skull is really the red skull anymore, just some kind of ghost of whats left of him. However the stone gets returned is irrelevant, yes he could even just leave it in a ditch somewhere. He didn't return other stones in their original form either, except the time stone. These timelines don't continue on as the original one. According to the comics the soul stone is sentient and everyone sacrificed to obtain is has their soul trapped inside the gem. Cap and the others of course don't know that (although Hulk must theoretically know having used it) or in the MCU this does not apply. When possessing it you can control any life and read their souls (their feelings and desires). One can also revert living things back their original state (like Nebula for example).
2nd Aug 2019
Demolition Man (1993)
Question: When the building with the hostages gets destroyed, Simon tells the police that he told John where the bodies were, with John responding that he didn't care. Clearly a blatant lie - why would the police actually take the word of a murdering psychopath like Simon considering that he would do or say anything to save himself?
Answer: Spartan didn't have authorization to go in and apprehend Phoenix to begin with. Depending on the time and manner of deaths of the hostages, it may have been impossible for the authorities to determine that they were already dead before Spartan went in guns blazing, so it would be determined that he was criminally negligent in their deaths. Whatever Phoenix had to say on the matter probably didn't even factor into Spartan's trial.
Answer: They didn't. They found the bodies and knowing how badly John wanted to take down Simon, they assumed Simon was telling the truth. I always felt that there was an assumption that Simon also had other planted evidence to frame John but that is never confirmed, just my hunch.
2nd Aug 2019
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Question: When the dynamite goes off in the theatre, destroying it, there is a shot of a woman being blown out of the top window of the building screaming for a brief moment. Who was that woman and how did she get there? It couldn't have been Shosanna as she was very dead from being shot before that moment. And it wasn't the translator for Goebbels either for the same reason. Most everybody else was in the theater room or the balcony's themselves. So who was that woman?
Answer: I'm not entirely sure it's a woman. I slowed the scene down and the person looks like they are wearing a tuxedo. So probably a man with a high-pitched voice/scream. My best guess is that it is one of the attendees who may have excused themselves from the auditorium before all the doors were locked, and once the fire and massacre started, they were running through the corridor unable to escape and were eventually thrown out of the window by the explosion.
31st Jul 2019
Deja Vu (2006)
Question: How would Doug leave the clues if Claire is already dead? The incident with Carroll happened before he went to her house to wash the blood off, which means she would have already been killed before he could've gone to her house and set all the clues.
Answer: This is just one of many examples of using the causal loop aspect of time travel. The clues aid Doug in his quest to catch the bomber and rescue Claire, but he is the one that puts the clues there. It's similar to "Terminator," in which Kyle Reese is sent back in time to protect Sarah Connor, and by extension, her future son John. but Kyle is the one who fathers John when he goes back in time.
31st Jul 2019
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Since it was possible to create a clone army, why were cybernetic parts given to Anakin, instead of cloning the limbs he lost and attaching them to his body?
Answer: To add to the above it is not just that he is missing arms and legs but his internal organs like lungs are incapable of working properly. So one would have to do more then just replace the arms and legs. In addition Palpatine make the suit vulnerable to force lighting making it harder for Vader to overthrow him as is the way of the Sith.
Answer: Adding to what Phaneron, also note how long it would take to grow said limbs for a full adult. The clones themselves have growth acceleration so that they take half the time a normal person to reach full maturity and growth. But this still takes 10-15 years for the to get to physical adulthood. And their growth acceleration doesn't stop at that point. The reason why none of the Storm Troopers are Clones in the original trilogy, by the time New Hope rolls around, is because they age twice as fast. Most died of old age or were very old by that point as in that 17 year time gap between Episode 3 and 4, they aged 34 years physically, without the growth acceleration being stopped as it's likely not able to be stopped. So it would take a very long time to grow cloned limbs for Anakin and be physically a match for him. And if they did accelerate the growth for said limbs, it would only take a few years before he'd be a younger guy walking around with very old man legs and arms. Not to mention, the arms and legs wouldn't have his muscle mass grown by default without being used.
29th Aug 2012
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Question: Is there any reason, other than to further the plot, that Jack and Will fight over possession of Davey Jones's heart? Their plans once they have control of the heart are not mutually exclusive as Will wants to free his father and Jack wants his debt with Jones settled. They have shown previously that they can work together, so why couldn't one of them take control of the heart and make the demands for both?
Chosen answer: Will having control of Jones' heart would not help Jack in the slightest. Will's intent is to KILL Jones, therefore freeing his father. If Jack had control of Jones' heart, he'd only use it to settle his debt, given Jack's history of treachery. Yes, they could work together, but that would solve nothing: Bootstrap agreed to serve Jones FOREVER. The only way that debt is settled is with Jones' death. That wouldn't help Jack, because, as he says: "With Jones dead, who's to call his terrible beasty off the hunt, eh?"
Davy Jones doesn't have to die in order for Will's father to be freed from service, though. As captain of the Dutchman, Jones has the power to relieve Bootstrap of his duty for any reason or no reason at all. The third film makes it clear that Jones is at the mercy of anyone that is in possession of his heart, when Beckett becomes his overlord and orders him to kill the Kraken and hunt other pirates. Will and Jack could have easily taken possession of the heart and ordered Jones to both release Jack from his debt and release Bootstrap from the Dutchman. Jack even proposes the idea in the next film to Will that Jack can be the one to stab Jones' heart and then release Bootstrap from his service, allowing Will to still be with Elizabeth.
30th Jul 2019
Game of Thrones (2011)
Question: Why does everyone argue over the best way to remove Cersei from power with minimal civilian casualties when they could have just sent Arya to assassinate Cersei? Given her training with the Faceless Men, she could easily infiltrate the Red Keep and get the job done. On top of that, Arya wants to kill Cersei.
Answer: Daenerys and her allies don't just want to kill Cersei, they want to claim King's Landing and free her people from Cersei's grip. The problem is the people of Essos viewed Daenerys as a liberator but the people of Westeros view her as an outsider and usurper. They would never follow Daenerys if she had Cersei assassinated. That is Daenerys' dilemma, she certainly has the ability to wipe Cersei out and obliterate her armies but doing so would make her a tyrant. Which as it turns out is exactly what happens.
But no-one has to know that Cersei was assassinated. Arya has the ability to impersonate anyone she kills, so she could pretend to be Cersei afterwards and profess to the citizens of King's Landing that she has yielded the throne to Danaerys and that she is going into exile.
That plan would be incredibly suspicious. Knowing what they know of Cersei it is highly unlikely the people of King's Landing would believe that she would accept defeat so easily and then voluntarily exile herself, never to be heard from again. In order for that to work, all of Cersei's advisers and closest allies would have to be similarly eliminated, or they would have to be on board with the exile plan. If they are all killed it sort of makes it obvious that something is amiss. There's no way they would be fooled by Cersei suddenly doing a 180 and completely changing her personality by accepting defeat without a fight. If any part of this plan goes wrong then Daenerys would look worse than just an assassin, she would also be deceitful to the people she hopes will willingly accept her rule.
3rd Nov 2017
The Founder (2016)
Question: Two questions are puzzling me. 1. Considering the tactics that Ray used to take control of McDonald's from the brothers, couldn't it be said that he cheated and conned the brothers out of their restaurant? 2. When Ray visits Mac in the hospital, he offers him a blank check to which the brothers agree. Why would they agree to such a thing instead of fighting to get their restaurant back?
Answer: 1. Yes, he pretty much cheated them out of their restaurant, royalties, intellectual property, etc. 2. Ray elaborates on this towards the end of the film when is on the phone with them. He's generated so much revenue from his real estate venture that he can afford to tie them up in court for years and drown them in legal fees if they decided to sue him for breach of contract. This is why they decide to surrender the company and everything that came with it in exchange for $1 million each and 1% perpetuity, the latter of which they never received.
6th Jul 2019
Logan (2017)
1st Jul 2019
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Question: How did Venom get Spider-Man's powers?
Answer: Spider-Man's powers are part of his DNA, so since the symbiote bonded with him, it was able to absorb Spidey's DNA into itself.
1st Jul 2019
The Simpsons (1989)
Question: I know that Bart the Mother was Phil Hartman's last episode before his death as Troy McClure but what was his last episode as Lionel Hutz?
Answer: His final speaking role was in "Realty Bites," but his actual final appearance was in "A Tale of Two Springfields," where he can briefly be seen trying to climb over the wall of garbage.
26th Jun 2019
General questions
How come in many movies that are based on true events, many of these events are false? Ex. In the movie "The Blindside", Leigh taught Michael how to play football but, in real life, he already knew how to play it. If movies are going to be made about true events about a person's life, then why aren't they ever a hundred percent true?
Answer: There are a variety of reasons, but it boils down to telling a compelling story. In the example you give, although I haven't seen the movie, I'd imagine it lends itself to better character development as well as possibly adding to the narrative. In the movie "Argo" which is also based on true events, the movie ends (spoiler) with the characters narrowly escaping the Iranian Hostage Crisis as the authorities at the airport become aware that they are on a departing plane and attempt to chase down the plane on the tarmac before it takes off. In real life, one of the people on the plane said their flight departed without any hiccups. This alteration was made to add tension to the movie, whereas the characters escaping with no resistance might feel anticlimactic.
21st Jun 2019
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
19th Jun 2019
Men in Black (1997)
Question: How does K holding the galaxy and calling Zed to let the Arquillians know they have it prevent them from destroying Earth?
Answer: The Arquillians are prepared to destroy Earth so that the Bug doesn't escape with the galaxy. MiB having it isn't a concern.
Answer: Presumably the Arquillians consider the galaxy to be in safe hands at this point and agree to hold off their attack provided the Men in Black deliver the galaxy to them.
19th Jun 2019
Weeds (2005)
Question: How is it that Stevie is so old when Nancy gets out of prison? He was an infant when she went in and she did 3 years.
Answer: It's not uncommon for TV shows to suddenly "age up" baby/toddler characters in order for them to have more narrative purpose. Other examples of shows I can think of that did this are "Step by Step," "Last Man Standing," "Boy Meets World," and possibly "Dexter."
14th Jun 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Why did time not end when Thanos destroyed the stones, and what happens in now there aren't any? The Ancient One stated that the stones control the flow of time, and removing even one of these opens up the world to unimaginable horror. Well why did nothing happen after Thanos destroyed them all? And now that our timeline has no stones, how would Dr. Strange be able to stop Dormammu from coming back?
Answer: The way I understood it, removing the stones from one timeline into another timeline is what The Ancient One was talking about. The "new branched reality" is what would be overrun by the forces of darkness. But, even if she meant this reality, the reality where Thanos destroyed the stones, The Ancient One said it was their chief weapon, not their only weapon. Bruce then tells her Doctor Strange gave the time stone to Thanos and The Ancient One says maybe she made a mistake. However, since Thanos eliminates half the population of the universe, including the forces of darkness, whatever forces she was talking about may not have been around to try and attack Earth. Or in the 5 years that we don't see, there was an attempt and other weapons were sufficient.
Answer: In the comics the stones will be replaced by something else equally powerful to compensate for their loss. I suppose the same applies to the MCU. These powers need to have a physical presence in the universe, in one way or another.
The only problem is the films never insinuate this at all. The Ancient One flat out states that not having the stones would be bad for the universe, and yet Thanos destroys the stones with absolutely no adverse affects to the universe whatsoever. This movie played very fast and loose with the rules they established regarding the stones and time travel and I feel like things like this were massive flaws.
The universe is a pretty big place, though. There could very well be bad things in another part of the universe that have yet to affect our galaxy. Additionally, the forces of darkness that could potentially threaten the universe may be curbed by a cosmic entity such as the Living Tribunal, whose existence in the MCU was acknowledged in "Doctor Strange" and could very well appear in "The Eternals" or "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3."
I just believe the ancient one didn't even know. The ancient one isn't always correct, as Bruce proved. And the bad thing was taking the stones away from their timeline, creating timelines where they are not supposed to be, it says nothing about destroying them.
That to me is still bad writing. You have a character whose entire purpose in the movie is to give exposition, and the exposition she gives is apparently incorrect. That's all well and good but that still needs to be addressed at some point. Some character should have brought up the fact that the stones were destroyed (and incidentally, remain destroyed in the main timeline) and the Ancient One should have addressed that fact. Otherwise, like the original question points out, it leaves a bit of a gap in the film's logic.
Answer: I believe the filmmakers have said that the energy of the stones was dissipated into the universe when their crystal vessels were destroyed. So that while they didn't have a physical form anymore, their essence remained and continued to regulate the flow of existence of the Universe. Presumably the energy can't then be reconstituted into the stones without some sort of profoundly intricate magic/science, the kind of power only possessed by gods and/or ancient elemental beings. Also, the Ancient One says that Hulk taking the time stone would be good for his timeline, but would leave hers without their weapon, which I presume means they wouldn't have the time stone to help the Sanctum's usual efforts in holding dark magic at bay. The actual effect of removing the essence of a stone from its timeline is still open to speculation.
If the ancient one was only talking about the time stone then Cap wouldn't have to bother bringing all stones back. No, she was talking about all infinity gems. Remove a stone and that universe is doomed.
Answer: The sorcerers may have other ways to stop Dormmamu from returning (even if those ways are currently unbeknownst to them). This could be addressed in the sequel. Additionally, since Dormmamu would have to know that the Time Stone was destroyed in the first place, he may well just stay away rather than falsely believing that he can be trapped in a time loop again.
Answer: She said the world not the universe. She said "without our chief weapon against the forces of darkness our world will be overrun." Theory: since Thanos used the stones to destroy the stones and Hulk heard what the Ancient One said, he could have used the stones to bring back their stones along with everyone else. He couldn't have know who all died in the universe, he could have just undid everything from 5 years ago.
9th Aug 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Question: Why can't Thanos stop Stormbreaker using all 6 stones?
Answer: He wasn't quick enough in that moment, having only obtained them a second ago. He has to close his hand or snap his fingers to do what he wanted to do, like stop stormbreaker. He didn't have time for that.
Answer: It should be noted that compared to their comic book counterparts, the Infinity Stones are not quite as powerful. In the comics, a closed fist is not required to use the Stones. They respond to the will of the person wielding them. The Infinity Gauntlet is merely a means of housing them and giving whomever wields them a place on their person to keep them. In the comics, Thanos would be able to stop Stormbreaker with but a thought, but in the film, the Stones essentially need a moment to "charge up," and Stormbreaker's trajectory is working against them.
10th Jun 2019
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Question: Instead of telling Stark to turn the donut around why doesn't he use a sling ring?
Answer: The range of the sling rings hasn't been defined. They were in deep space at this point, so they may have been too far away for Strange to open up a portal on Earth for them to step through.
In Endgame, Strange opens at least one portal from across the galaxy. For example, we see the one opened from Titan that he, Spiderman, and the Gaurdians all come through. Unless his sling powers suddenly increased after the great purge, he should have been able to open a portal from deep space on the ship.
Answer: The Q Ship was travelling in some form of hyperspace. It would be reasonable to assume that the slingring could not work under those circumstances. When he does use it later, it is from the surface of the planet Titan.
And when they arrive on Titan his idea to protect the time stone changes. He instead looks at different time-lines.
Why would it be different in hyperspace? The ship has its own gravity.
By definition, hyperspace exists outside normal time and space. Depending on how the sling ring works, it may not be able access normal space.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: Bruce snapped everybody back before they even knew 2014 Thanos had traveled into the future to attack them.
Phaneron ★