Question: The narrative for this franchise takes place over thousands of years, yet Middle Earth is always in a medieval stasis. Has any reason been provided as to why Middle Earth never advances technologically?
Phaneron
30th Nov 2013
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
28th Jun 2013
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Question: After Talia orders Foley and the other cops to be gunned down, Foley's body is shown and he doesn't appear to have any bullet holes in him. Even with his black uniform you can see that his clothes don't have tears. Although it's possible that he was shot in the back, wouldn't the type of guns that are on the Tumblers be powerful enough to cause exit wounds?
Answer: He was hit by the tumbler. It wasn't included in the final cut due to how graphic it was when filmed.
Chosen answer: Almost certainly, yes, in fact, if the weapons demonstrated by the original Tumbler give any guide, his body would likely be severely damaged if not torn apart completely. However, as we don't actually see the precise circumstances of his shooting, we can't say that he was hit by one of the Tumbler's guns; given the intact state of his body, it seems far more likely that he was gunned down using a smaller weapon carried by one of Talia's remaining henchmen.
22nd Oct 2012
Batman Returns (1992)
Question: Although Shreck's death makes the situation moot, why would Batman risk revealing his identity to Selina right in front of Shreck if his intention is for Shreck to go into police custody? Surely Shreck would have revealed Batman's identity had he survived.
Chosen answer: It has always been in Batman's character to do everything it takes to save lives, any lives, no matter what. In Batman forever, during the circus scene, he immediately jumps to his feet and reveals who he is to Harvey Dent when Dent threatens everyone at the circus with a bomb (even though the noise of the crowd means nobody hears him, his intention was clear). At this point in the movie, Bruce cannot think of any other way to get through to Selina and show her that there is another choice besides revenge and murder. He's trying to save her from herself and save Shreck from her, giving up his identity and his secret is something he simply decides is worth it. That's who Batman is!
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.
26th Oct 2011
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Question: This question also applies to a similar scene from Episode I. When the Rebel Forces are fleeing Hoth, why do they have to fly right in the path of the blockade? There didn't appear to be any resistance on the planet's northern and southern poles, and the lack of gravity in space shouldn't preclude them from flying their planes at a ninety degree angle once they escape the planet's gravitational pull, instead of having to fly in a path parallel to the blockade's position.
Chosen answer: The Empire's ships are faster and more maneuverable and don't suffer speed restrictions from the atmosphere of the planet. They could easily outrun/pick off the Rebel ships as they left the protection of the planetary shield. By going directly at the Star Destroyers, they give themselves the best chance in two ways. First, they present a smaller target coming head-on. Second, by going between the ships, the Imperials risk hitting their own ships if they fire. It would also take more time to set the courses for hyperspace because of all the maneuvering.
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.
Chosen answer: The presence of real magic in the world, and the fact that evil demi-gods and sorcerers keep trying to destroy it every few thousand years, makes technological advancement an endeavor no one sees much need for. Saruman makes some advances in it at Isengard, and in the novel the Shire had been very industrialized by Saruman's takeover when the hobbits return home to it.
Phixius ★