Question: Did Erik know that Zuri was his Uncle James before Zuri told him he was the one responsible for his death?
lionhead
23rd May 2018
Black Panther (2018)
27th Nov 2004
The Thing (1982)
Question: So what happen to the two guys at the end of the movie? Are there any stories about them in the PC game or an alternate ending or something like that?
Answer: The Game shows Child's frozen body where we last saw him in the movie (Whether he is a thing lying dormant or not, we never find out) There is a comic book series that continues where the movie left off, where MacCready and child's are rescued by another research team on a ship. And it is discovered that Childs was in fact a Thing, spawning a whole new generation of things among the team.
Can you tell me what comic book series that is? I'd like to read it.
The comic series is called The Thing From Another World, just like the original movie from the 50's. It was published by Dark Horse comics. Besides some decent artwork, especially on the covers, the series isn't very good and actually contradicts the movie in a few areas.
Thanks! I read it, it's not bad.
Answer: No one knows what happened. They had no transport and couldn't make radio contact, so very likely they froze to death. If one or both are Things, then they just went dormant until rescue shows up. There is nothing in the game or on the DVD that answers this for sure. BTW It's very hotly debated amongst Thing fans, that Childs is a thing because you cannot see his breath in the cold. (It's very difficult to tell if you can or not because of the scene's lighting).
Answer: Just to add to the other answers, I actually saw an interview with Keith David recently where he explained that it was purposely shot to be ambiguous. They shot two different versions of the scene - one where they played the scene as though neither was the thing... and another where they acted more suspicious of one another. And they built the scene out of the footage they had. He also debunked the popular fan theory about how you couldn't see Childs' breath being a hint... he explained that the way the scene was blocked, the air around him was slightly warmer than it was around Kurt Russell due to the fire and the debris around them - hence you just couldn't see his breath while you could see Russell's, who was about 5 or so feet away. (Not to mention you can actually see a little bit of his breath once or twice.) It wasn't a conscious decision to try to hint that Childs might be the thing. The scene really is just meant to be super ambiguous and unexplained.
20th Mar 2006
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Corrected entry: When Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire, it is written on lined paper and not parchment. Wizards only use parchment.
Correction: In the books wizards only use parchments, but it is not stated in the movies that they never use paper.
Yep I even think its done intentionally. Barty Crouch Junior intentionally used muggle paper for Harry's name to make it more believable that Harry did it himself.
5th May 2018
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: When Tyranus incapacitates Skywalker and Kenobi, why didn't Dooku kill Anakin and Obi-Wan when he had the chance?
Answer: Well in the case of Anakin it's simple, since Dooku was under orders from Darth Sidious not to kill him, as Sidious saw him as a potential Sith apprentice. Obi-Wan, could be several reasons. It could simply be that Dooku held them alive as hostages because he knew Yoda was coming. It's also possible Obi-Wan is part of the Sidious' plan to keep Anakin's training stable and on schedule so he can be turned. If Anakin got a new master or went rogue he might be harder to turn. It's also possible Dooku didn't want to waste time with Obi-Wan, as he didn't see him as a threat.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Of Dooku not being allowed to kill Anakin? Of course. Darth Sidious has had his eye on Anakin since Naboo when he met him as a young child, feeling the power he has. Since then he has been training him, teaching him, influencing him to go to the dark side. Obviously he doesn't want any harm to come to him. So, Dooku was not allowed to kill Anakin. Either Dooku himself saw Anakin as a potential Sith (considering his dialogue with Anakin during their final duel) and apprentice or Dooku was told by Sidious not to kill Anakin but try to persuade him to switch sides. As for Obi-wan its like I said, just speculations. Perhaps someone else can elaborate better, perhaps take it to the Forum? I can open a book or 2 about this, but better in the Forum than as a reply here.
What's the source of this? Is it from the Novel?
No I got this information from watching the movies. It's just logical conclusions to the events that lead up to the final Dooku vs Anakin duel. Dooku didn't expect to kill Anakin, but turn him. This is the reason he incapacitates Obi-Wan and starts talking to Anakin. But again, maybe a conversation for the Forum.
But how did Sidious know that Anakin and Obi wan would fight Tyranus?
When? On Geonosis? He didn't know, Palpatine didn't know all Dooku was doing on that planet whilst he secured the start of the war, but he knew Obi-Wan and Anakin would go after him, knowing he is a Sith. The events at Geonosis with the Jedi and the clone troops came a bit early for Palpatine I suspect, but proved to be working for his plans rather than against it. He wanted Dooku to reveal himself as a Sith to Obi-Wan and Anakin of course. Obi-Wan had some experience fighting Sith and Anakin was eager to prove himself, knowing that, Palpatine took the necessary measures to make sure Anakin wasn't killed, and probably didn't care much for Obi-wan's fate come to think of it. It's likely Dooku didn't see Anakin's potential until he fought him either, immediately understanding (but not fully) why his master wanted him to live.
6th May 2018
The Truman Show (1998)
Question: I've always wondered why the actors (and Truman) wear 1950's style clothing even though the movie was filmed in 1998. Does Truman believe he's living in the fifties?
Answer: He wouldn't have known he was driving a modern car since his world consisted of whatever was brought in for him.
Well 50's looks includes 50's technology. If he really thought he lived in the 50's a 90's car would seem out of place. He doesn't get shown much from the real world but surely they have car magazines, kitchen appliances, gardening tools. Can't keep it all 50's. Plus, they want to sell stuff they have in the show, but 50's cars aren't made anymore and wouldn't be made specifically for the show, so they have modern technology. Therefor, he knows its the 90's. I'm sure he was taught proper history at school as well.
Everything in his world is fabricated to what the shows producers want him to believe. If they are able to build a set that is visible from space, surely having magazines from the 50s or having him taught in 50s format is not impossible.
Might be possible. But do you think Truman believes he is in the 50's? What kind of history did they teach him? Surely they can't censor domestic and world politics (like elections) and natural disaster events, which requires images to see. Sure they censor the studio, but they can't keep all images from the outside world away from him. Besides, I just put in a movie mistake myself that shows they at last have taught him world history the proper way.
I didn't put the mistake in as the Truman show can take place in the future. What I found out that there is a scene of Truman as a kid in school and the teacher pulls down a map of the world, a 90's map. So they do teach him proper history. And since its a 90's map the Truman show takes place in the future and its the 2010's or something. But it shows Truman knows in what era he lives.
Answer: It's all part of the set of the fictional show that Truman is unwittingly a part of. The '50s were viewed (by some) as a wholesome, uncomplicated time, so it makes sense that the show's producers would choose it for their wholesome, uncomplicated show. And if Truman did believe it was the 1950s, well, why not? He has no outside frame of reference.
Well, he did drive a modern car.
Which is irrelevant. Truman wouldn't know the difference. A modern car was likely one of the many product-placement deals the show had.
Again though, during the segment where they look back at Truman's ambitions to become an explorer they show a world map which is accurate for the time. Also, it would be impossible to convince him anything in the world is different even if they would control the news and TV shows (history books), what about elections for example?
Answer: You need to think outside the box. you know 50s stuff is different and modern appliances would stand out but for Truman, it doesn't. Magazines, TV broadcasts etc would all be controlled by the director so he has no reference to question that anything is out of place or "not of that era." To him, its not different.
Answer: Dude how are you not getting this? They can tell him anything they want. He doesn't have any form of reference to say it's out of place. His entire world is what they've told him since he was a baby. They can tell him it's 2020 but still have 1950s equipment. To Truman, that's 2020 equipment. He doesn't know about all the advances since them. You, me and all the viewers know its out of era but Truman doesn't since he's grown up with it being relevant to whatever year theyve told him it is.
Are you talking to me? if you are, what are you rambling about? The question was if Truman believed he was in the 50's. I argued he didn't. That's all. According to you that's true even. Relax.
Answer: They created his world: the clothing, cars, electronics, everything around him is conceived by the producers of the show. You see some people dresses like the 50's and some like the 80's, and then his TV is 50's but the cars are 90's. He doesn't have a frame of reference so it seems normal to him.
5th Apr 2017
Suicide Squad (2016)
Question: In the prison scene where they laid out the weapons, why was Deadshot shooting the rifle at an angle when he was "showing off" to Flag and Waller?
Answer: Exactly as you said, to show off. He wants them to see he can fire just as accurately at an angle.
I am not a gun expert and attempts to search this to verify my point have failed. However, it seems to me that he rotates the rifle to use the secondary sight. While this may be showing off, I assumed this secondary sight was intended to be used for a different range of target, or made a specific type of target easier. When he rotates the gun, it seems he is switching targets. Research has shown that the gun does have 2 sights (DDM4 MK18).
The DDM4 MK18 Deadshot is using has a single red dot sight, nothing "secondary." A gun has only 1 sight, perhaps also a scope, but nothing on the side that requires the gun to be used at an angle. Firing a gun at an angle seriously reduces the accuracy. If there is something attached on the side it's either a flashlight or a laser.
If you re-watch the scene, there are very obvious iron sights that he is using that are accessible by tilting the gun sideways. Holding it normal gets you the scope, sideways gets you the iron sights. Not sure what the benefits would be but there are absolutely 2 types of sights on the gun he is using.
Answer: The benefits to having the back-up iron sights is if the battery in your red dot go out during a fire fight. There are several gun accessory manufacturers that make angled iron sights. The are used as a backup just in case. Yes he is showing off, and yes those sights exist.
10th Nov 2017
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Question: Could you really use tracer rounds in the type of machine guns the Germans were firing during the Normandy scene at the beginning of the movie, as seems to be the case?
Answer: Absolutely. There were tracer rounds in ammo belts for the MG42.
Could you fire incendiary rounds as well?
Yes, an MG42 can fire incendiary rounds.
26th Apr 2018
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Question: After she finds out that her father's dead, Elizabeth looks absolutely devastated and Will asks Tia Dalma if there is a way. What exactly does Tia say in reply? And why can't she bring back Elizabeth's father from the dead like she brought back Barbossa?
Answer: She says that he is at peace. It's probably possible that she could bring him back, but he doesn't want to go back.
If she would bring him back, he will be very distraught and not be able to live on normally. He'd probably go insane and commit suicide.
Answer: Tia Dalma (Calypso) brought Barbossa back only because she needed him as part of her plan to escape her corporeal form. The Pirate Lords had imprisoned her in a human body, and only they, which included Barbossa and Jack Sparrow, could release her. There was no reason for her to bring Elizabeth's father back from the dead, particularly as he is at peace and will be reunited with his dead wife.
23rd Apr 2018
Wonder Woman (2017)
Corrected entry: Diana was sculpted from clay by her mother, and Hades, her former lover. Aphrodite then breathed life into the statue. She was not born in the usual sense. Ignoring above and assuming she is in fact the daughter of Zeus (or Hades), this would make Ares her uncle. Not her brother as she says in the film.
Correction: This entry is doubly wrong - first off, the film states that Diana's origin story is different than it was in the original comics, so here, Hippolyta told her she was made from clay and all that, when in reality, she was made the old fashioned way by Zeus and Hippolyta. Basically, the movie radically streamlines her comic book origin story, just like the first Thor movie did. Second, what is true in mythology would not necessarily translate one on one to the movie, and the movie mentions during the storytelling scene at the beginning that Ares is Zeus' son.
Well I do think she was made from clay and turned to life by Zeus, that still makes her Zeus' daughter. A demigod. Technically Ares is her half-brother.
Correction: The comic book origins don't necessarily apply to the films.
7th Nov 2017
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)
Question: This is a two part question. Firstly how many students did Luke have before his academy was destroyed by Kylo Ren? Secondly what will happen to the New Republic now its capital is destroyed?
Answer: Any answer would be conjecture - best just watch the next movie.
Answer: We learn in The Last Jedi that Luke had Ben Solo/Kylo Ren and a dozen other apprentices. Kylo killed 6 of them and took the remaining six as is apprentices, the Knights of Ren.
The knights of Ren are not the six apprentices Kylo takes with him. The knights of Ren are Snoke's followers, dark force users. Kylo joins them and becomes their leader later on.
3rd Apr 2018
Aladdin (1992)
Question: Genie tells Aladdin he cannot kill, or make anyone fall in love, or bring people back from the dead. He also tells Aladdin he cannot wish for more wishes. Shouldn't that make four rules not three?
Answer: The three rules refer to what he could wish for, not how many. It's like a coupon that tells you both what it's good for and limit one per customer. The rules about distinct things that don't affect each other.
Answer: The Genie never actually says that he has "3 rules", he just numbers the three you mentioned as he is explaining them. He told Aladdin about the "no more wishes" rule before he sang "Never Had a Friend Like Me." He doesn't include "no more wishes" in his list of rules because Aladdin already knew about it.
Yes of course it's a rule. What difference does it make?
I meant yes it would make four rules.
He says there are a few "provisors", a few "quid pro quo's" (which doesn't make any sense) to the 3 wishes he can do. That's what he can't do because he is limited into doing them. However, the not getting more than 3 wishes is something the Genie himself won't do for him. The 3 limitations he sums up are about the wishes itself, the fact he can do only 3 is a separate rule the Genie himself won't do. So the wishes have only 3 official rules because the Genie can't do anything about them, and 1 particular wish the Genie simply won't grant.
Answer: There is a difference between what he cannot do and won't do.
You're going to going to need to be more specific.
8th Apr 2018
Shrek 2 (2004)
Question: How long did it take for Shrek, Fiona, and Donkey to get to the kingdom of Far Far Away?
Answer: Roughly 2000 "are we there yet?" questions away. Which to Fiona and Shrek must have felt like 10,000 years. But seriously, they come across signs for "away" and "far away" adding up to 900 miles distance, so I'd say "far far away" is about 3000 miles from the swamp. By carriage that's about 21 days if they keep going day and night and at the same, slow pace (6 miles per hour?) they were going.
The curious thing though is where they would get food while traveling to far far away.
The 21 days I said for calculation purposes, obviously they had stops to eat and drink (pee).
18th May 2005
Braveheart (1995)
Question: Directly before Wallace is beheaded, he sees his dead wife in the crowd. Is this meant to be her ghost or is he imagining it?
Answer: I prefer to think that her spirit is actually there to welcome him to the afterlife.
Its all left for us to figure it out.
Answer: He is imagining it. He is trying focus on the fact he will see his wife again soon, in the after-life, rather than the pain of torture and his impending death.
6th Apr 2018
The X-Files (1993)
Trust No 1 - S9-E6
Question: After blowing up the car, when the NSA guy answers Scully's question, "How the hell do you know my size?" he says, "I know the name of your college boyfriend, your true hair colour, your ATM PIN number." This strongly suggests that red is not her true colour. Therefore, my question is: What is the true colour of Scully's hair?
Answer: He was being facetious. He doesn't specifically know that information, he was merely giving examples of the types of information he has access to.
I think so too.
Answer: Actress Gillian Anderson's natural hair color is strawberry blonde, which she dyed fiery red. (Although in the revival of the show she wears a wig).
The question does not concern Gillian Anderson's true hair colour-it concerns Agent Dana Scully's true hair colour.
3rd Apr 2018
Shrek 2 (2004)
Question: What caused Fiona to turn back into a human?
Answer: It wasn't a side effect of the "Happily Ever After" potion, it was the main purpose of it. The potion turned the drinker of the potion and his or her true love into a more beautiful form. However, in order for them to stay in that form, they must kiss before midnight. Since Shrek and Fiona waited till after midnight, they reverted back. Donkey also reverts back. There was a script idea to show Dragon also change, but it was scrapped. However, we only see Dragon after the potion wore off, so she too would be in her normal form, since they didn't kiss before midnight.
Answer: Yes. Since the Happily Ever After Potion causes Shrek to become a handsome man and, according to the instructions, causes the persons one true love to also change into a different form, after Shrek became human, Fiona turned back into a human.
Answer: That was an unintended side effect of the "Happily Ever After" potion that caused Shrek to turn human and Donkey to turn into a white stallion; the reason it caused Fiona to revert to her human form is never really explained within the film.
7th Apr 2018
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: I'm still a bit confused on the tripods' actual height. I can't find it anywhere and I just wanted to make sure how tall the tripods are. Preferably in meters but any measurement is fine.
27th Aug 2001
Titanic (1997)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Rose is looking at Jack on the bow of the ship, you can see a tiny bit of desert behind him. (01:19:25)
Correction: What you are seeing is cloud formations tinted gold from the setting sun. Not a desert.
Indeed. So funny to post a "mistake" like that. They shot it all inside a studio, nowhere near any desert. Why would there be a desert?
They quite famously built a full-scale replica of the Titanic at the Fox Baja Studios in Rosarito, Mexico, and a lot of shots were on that replica. Rosarito isn't exactly a desert but it's not lush and verdant either. The cloud formations were real clouds, outside.
26th Mar 2018
Alien Resurrection (1997)
Corrected entry: If the mission is to capture and use xenomorphs, why on Earth aren't the areas of the ship meant for them acid-proof?
Correction: Perhaps there is no material strong enough to resist the acid. It's extremely volatile. Also, the station isn't built for the containment of xenomorphs, and since it is a secret operation they couldn't get any materials without drawing suspicion.
Yep, not even the Predators have armor that can stand the xenomorps' acid, and they have been technologically advanced for thousands of years.
Even 400 years in the future!? My entire point is that why aren't they better prepared for confining the xenomorphs?! By any means and at all levels?! Weyland Yutoni is powerful enough to get what they need secrectly.
It may well be 400 years in the future, but that doesn't mean they have developed a very specific material to resist the acidic effects of the alien blood.
26th Mar 2018
Batman and Robin (1997)
Stupidity: Batman blows up a rocket to avoid it crashing back to Gotham. You would've thought he would have more sense to detonate it whilst it was out of the earth's atmosphere So, basically, he has turned 1 falling object into hundred of falling objects. (01:11:15 - 01:11:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Batman's bomb probably has a set time to go off, couldn't have it go off until it was higher. So he slapped it on immediately and went after Freeze. The rocket disintegrated in the explosion, making it harmless.
Completely ridiculous correction that contradicts what the movie itself shows. You literally see it explode right after Batman exits. There's no "set timer" outside of a couple-second delay.
30th Oct 2017
The Book of Eli (2010)
Corrected entry: The protected copy of the Bible is placed at the end next to a copy of the Artscroll Tanach which includes the Hebrew/English version of the original bible as well as the other 39 holy books, so they had it all the time.
Correction: The Tanakh, as much as it is the "Hebrew bible", does not include the entirety of the new testament, which, as well as there being numerous changes between the Tanakh and the KJV, means that no, they did not "already have" what Eli was bringing to them.
Yeah he specifically said he had a King James bible, meaning the English translation of the old testament. Though it just a translation the old testament of the King James bible is still of important historical value. And of course the inclusion of the new testament and apocrypha like Maccabees.
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: Well he's not literally an uncle to Killmonger, but rather he saw him as a surrogate uncle when he was a kid because he was always by his father's side.
Phaneron ★
And yes, he did know.
lionhead