Question: Is 2014 now in danger or basically completely screwed? Quill would have woken up and probably have been caught by either Korath or Yondu as he had been knocked out. Even if he didn't, he would have gone to the broker with the orb, but this time there would be no Gamora outside to try and take it, he may have still been arrested with Groot and Rocket, however they wouldn't join them as they have no chance to bond over Gamora. Without the Guardians, Xandar would have probably fallen, but more horrible is Ego may have found Quill, and without the Guardians he wouldn't have been able to stop him so guess what...Ego destroys the universe.
Jon Sandys
14th Jun 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Answer: All the timelines are screwed, each time they went back, they altered that timeline in ways Captain couldn't have known about to fix.
12th Jan 2008
Meet the Robinsons (2007)
Question: Is the dog in glasses a reference to Mr. Peabody, or just a coincidence? I thought if it was, the commentary would mention it, but there was no mention of the gag at all.
Answer: There's no indication that the dog had anything to do with Mr Peabody (especially since the dog didn't speak or do anything other than sit there). It was just a front for a throwaway joke.
It's a coincidence because Mr. Peabody and Sherman was not released until 2014 and Meet the Robinsons came out in 2007.
But that film is based on the Peabody's Improbable History segment from the 50s/60s TV show The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends.
3rd May 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Why did Vision not appear in the film?
Answer: Short version, because he's dead. Bruce only brought back everyone Thanos "snapped", and Vision was killed before that. Now, whether Shuri managed to finish her work before then, somehow "backing him up" or otherwise separating him from the mind stone, we don't know as yet - it may be they somehow revive him in a future film, or the upcoming WandaVision TV series. But for now, he's gone.
Answer: Technically vision wasn't "killed." He wasn't even alive. He's a robot. Maybe they could have used the mind stone they had to try to revive him, but Thanos ripped out a good chunk of his head already. And they needed to put the mind stone back anyway.
Answer: If you noticed Black Panther's sister had just one connection left with the gem, and who said she didn't download a copy of his Consciousness but didn't finish, due to the snap and the end battle.
27th Apr 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: How did Thanos get to the present timeline? Wasn't Nebula left with just one dose of pym particles, which she used to get back?
Answer: It shows Nebula presenting the vial of Pym particles to Thanos, it's probable that he (or someone like Maw) was able to reverse engineer the particles so that they had their own supply to use.
Answer: 2014 Nebula would have needed the vial to power her future self's suit to get to 2023 so she could impersonate her. But Thanos would have had to re-create enough of the particles so that the time tunnel could lock onto his ship and pull it through.
Answer: She used the excess Pym particles that Tony and Cap brought back.
Is that your own personal interpretation of it? They don't show it in the movie, unless I am mistaken. And it should be Thanos to use the Pym particles to jump into the Quantum dimension, how does she having the particles in the present affect it?
Her robotic fingers seem to be red as they go into the machine, implying they're making use of the Pym particles. And they had Nebula's "GPS" unit they all wore on their hands - given Thanos' technology they could presumably have copied or adapted it in some way to work with the ship, positioning it in time and space if nothing else.
Yes that's my interpretation. The machine works differently than the suits. She did a lot of modification to it as well before activating it. She somehow managed to get an entire ship transported to the future in a matter of minutes. The only logical conclusion is that she used Pym particles to power the machine and then pull the ship through.
No. Thanos on his end, would need those particles to get small and enter the Quantum Realm. Like the others.
Answer: The directors have addressed this and confirmed that Thanos gave the Pym particles to Ebony Maw (a brilliant scientist) who then reverse engineered them and created more.
Answer: He could have gotten the Pym particles from Pym himself. Likely by force. He has Nebula's memory and saw their whole plan. But, the official answer that came out was Maw reversed engineered them.
25th Apr 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Spoiler! Time seems to be defined as somewhat linear, with alternate realities branching off rather than changing the past of any given timeline. But if that's the case, how can Steve go back in time and stay, which should branch off a new reality with him in it, but then "catch up" with "our" reality? Seems like if he stayed in the past he'll have made plenty of changes.
Answer: The Russo brothers have elaborated somewhat: "the old Cap at the end of the movie, he lived his married life in a different universe from the main one. He had to make another jump back to the main universe at the end to give the shield to Sam." They didn't explain his jump back, which leaves the door open for interdimensional travel. They certainly implied there's a bit more to the story which might get revealed in time. But thus far we know there's an alternate timeline where 2019 Cap was running around helping people (again, per Russo interviews), not interfering with "our" timeline.
Answer: He stayed behind but didn't reveal himself or change anything whilst there. That way the future isn't altered and stays "the same." This does mean that the timeline we have been following is the timeline where Cap stayed behind and there were basically 2 Steve Rogers at all times. That can theoretically work in a linear timeline idea.
True, I think that does mostly line up. Peggy told him she got married to someone he rescued, but that could easily have been a cover story so as not to tip him off about what happens too early.
He originally had the tools to go back return the stones and then return back to his timeline. Instead of returning back right away when the job was done he just hung around and lived his life. Then as an old man used the particle to return back to his original timeline effectively leaving the different timeline he had just been living in for the last however many years. He could always return back to the the original timeline at any point. He just decided to wait.
Yeah see I don't agre to this because if he had used the particles again to go back to the future after living his life in the past he would have ended up on the platform wouldn't he? I say he just grew old and waited for that moment of his younger self going to back to sit down on that bench.
That's not possible. (a) He was in the ice for 60 years. How would he know what not to do? (b) There's nothing he could do that wouldn't change the timeline. Anything he did means someone else didn't do it from the previous timeline. A house he rented, food he ate, places he went. Even whatever fake name he uses alters history as it wasn't there before.
The point is all those things did exist, but they didn't mess with the events that occurred in the movies. So not a different timeline than the one we have been following, but the same. This can only be done if the second Cap stays out of history. I'm not a fan of the butterfly effect, it doesn't have any basis, that's why I always explain timelines in this way. An extra spoon in the dishwasher or an extra tank of gasoline doesn't change the timeline so much that it can't be the one we were following anymore. So yes, he changed the timeline, but that's the timeline we have been following.
Answer: Since Cap was frozen for 70 years, he could potentially live out his life back in that time without risking interfering with his future self's actions which would allow him to arrive back to the same point where he left. It's not too dissimilar from the first two "Back to the Future" films where Marty arrives back in 1985 from 1955. As long as Marty takes no actions to prevent himself from going back in time in that moment, then he can arrive back to the same point he left without causing a major disruption in the space-time continuum. Consequently though, since Cap married Peggy when he went back, this would effectively erase the marriage she revealed having had in "The Winter Soldier," which could cause minor differences in the timeline.
This is the point though - it's made clear that they can't change the past, just branch off a new timeline. And given we know she got married in "our" timeline, him going back created a new one, one where she married him instead. And that's all well and good, but that leaves him stranded in timeline "B", with no way to jump back to "A." That said of course there's no real reason this couldn't be hand-waved away as using Dr. Strange or other tech to cross dimensions somehow, it's just mildly annoying they didn't clarify it. :-).
Well the way they did it makes it complicated I think. The Pym particles made a certain type of time travel possible I think, a different kind than the time gem for example can do. It's irreversible, but not linear. The linear timeline is what the ancient one explained about the gems. They had to be put back in their place in time in order for the fabric of the universe to stay in tact. Only that had to be restored, but not what Cap did, or even creating alternate timelines in general (which did happen with Loki disappearing).
I feel though that since two Caps were existing in the same timeline, one of which was frozen for several decades, then the Cap that went back to be with Peggy can still end up in the same spot as long as he doesn't interfere with himself or his fellow Avengers in their "future" missions. He might cause a slightly different timeline to happen, but as long as he lets his other self play out the events as they originally unfolded, it allows that other self to be in the same position to travel back to return the Infinity Stones and then be with Peggy, rendering any branching timeline to be inconsequential because he is putting himself in a time loop. Just like Marty in "Back to the Future." Marty's actions in the past create a slightly new timeline, but he is still traveling back to 1955 at the exact same point in this slightly different 1985.
Can't compare it to Back to the Future, there was always 1 Marty in Back to the Future since he goes back to a time before he was born. The changes to the timeline in Back to the Future should have butterflied a lot away. Not sure what you mean with "still end up in the same spot" if there are 2 Caps. The Cap that went back to be with Peggy didn't have to "end up in the same spot", just stay out of history until his past self goes back. Like you say, it's a loop for him.
By "end up in the same spot," I mean the Cap that coexists with the Cap that goes back in time is allowed to play out the events from "The Avengers," "The Winter Soldier," "Civil War," etc. without his alternate self interfering in matters, thus he is able to reach the same point in time where he goes back to return the Infinity Stones and then be with Peggy, which is what creates/continues his loop.
He wouldn't be stranded in "B" if he still had his TimeGPS device (which I imagine he would've held onto). That could have allowed him to make the jump back to the "A" timeline. That device is what links/keeps the time traveler tethered/able to return to their original timeline and not get stuck. Either he used it to make the jump back as he normally would have, or he could've employed some of the great minds of the alternate "B" timeline he was living in (i.e. Hank Pym, Howard Stark (if he prevented his assassination in the "B" timeline), Tony Stark, etc...) to use the GPS's 'tether' as a way to get back to "A"
Exactly. What people seem to miss is that throughout the movie, the time travelers are creating alternate timelines, but always return to their original one. That's the way time travel works in the MCU.
That's a good point - if they go to the battle of New York and make any change at all, that's a new timeline which they're technically in, but they can still return to their original one without any problem. That new one then carries on without them.
Answer: What's interesting is that during Civil War when Peggy dies and people are carrying her coffin, there is a white haired man of Steve's build carrying one side, but it never shows his face. I believe this is a little Easter egg to show he was there all along.
Answer: Remember Cap took three vials of Pym particles. One for himself and Tony and another for this reason.
Answer: Theory 1: The MCU as we know it is a product of Captain America going back in time and returning the stones. Theory 2: the older Captain America is from another timeline. That's how he got a new shield.
15th Aug 2018
Ready Player One (2018)
Question: When the guy playing as Jason Voorhees gets killed in the OASIS, he throws off his goggles in a fit of rage and attempts to jump out the window to commit suicide. He's at work with other workers and surrounded by Dell computers. Am I mistaken... or are those modern day Dell computers? This movie takes place in 2045 and to me it seems unrealistic for a Japanese/Chinese company to be using almost 30 year old computers. (00:06:50)
Answer: It is not uncommon for movies set in the future to include technology or brands from the era that they were made. For example, futuristic movies like Back to the Future Part II, Blade Runner or Alien include technology and brands that were popular when they were made, as well as appear just as they appeared at the time their respective movies were made, but become outdated as the years go by. This is done mainly because the filmmakers do not know what the real technologies or brands will be in 2045 so they have to use modern technologies and brands of our time to include in the movie. Though sometimes the technologies and brands can be incorporated with the technology the future setting in the movie has established to make it feel as real as possible.
Answer: I didn't notice the computers, but yes, you're right. They could have put Plexiglass boxes with glowing lights inside on everyone's desks where an electronic device might go, no wires, with maybe a place to put the headset onto for charging. I think that would have looked futuristic and been acceptable to the movie viewers. (Or maybe a pyramid design instead of a box design.) But someone else might suggest that the owner of the business where all the people work (if it is a business) might have opted for the "retro look" even though the computers/electronics inside are far beyond what they look like.;-).
Answer: 25 years from now a computer will still need an input device, a display device, and a box to hold the processor. Why would computers change all that radically? As the old saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Computers have changed appearance radically over the past 10, 20, 30 years. Yes a computer from 1999 would have had an "input, display and box" but there's a stark difference in technology and design between that era and the modern day.
Since most people play on their own in their own homes and only on the Oasis, what a computer looks like seems much less important.
31st Mar 2019
Shazam! (2019)
Question: Why is the character called Shazam instead of his original name, Captain Marvel? The character first appeared in DC comics in 1939 so, shouldn't the name belong to him and not the Marvel universe?
Answer: Fawcett Comics originally published Captain Marvel, not DC. DC sued, claiming the character was too similar to Superman, and Fawcett stopped publication in 1953, and sold the rights to DC in 1972. But in the intervening period Marvel had started their own "Captain Marvel" character and got the trademark for it, as Fawcett's had expired. So while the character remained technically called Captain Marvel, DC used the trademark "Shazam" in marketing, and in 2011 renamed the character to Shazam officially, as people generally thought that was his name anyway.
26th Mar 2019
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
Question: If Scott was under house arrest how could he have paid bills?
Answer: If you mean how did he afford to pay his bills, he makes money from his security firm.
Answer: Online.
13th Mar 2019
General questions
What action or otherwise "exciting" movies have quite a low-key ending? It's fairly standard now for action movies to build to a massive crescendo, a final all-out action sequence with CGI destruction running rampant. Do any relatively modern movies buck that trend?
Answer: I would add, "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo." Lizbeth Salander exposes Martin Vanger as the serial murderer. He is killed when Lizbeth chases him, resulting in a car explosion. That is the film's climax, but in the side plot, Lizbeth then goes on to expose Wennerström's corruption, as well as removing billions of Euros from his secret accounts.
Answer: First one that comes to mind is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (if the ending is the same as in the book, that is-not 100% sure), but ending with a battle of words instead of an action sequence like most of the other Twilight movies.
Answer: Doctor Strange comes to mind - not *that* low key, but the actual climax is him in a time loop negotiating Earth's safety rather than a massive epic battle.
22nd Feb 2019
Mary Poppins Returns (2018)
Question: P.L. Travers hated Disney's film adaptation of Mary Poppins so much that she refused to have Disney make any more adaptations of Mary Poppins. How could a sequel be made without the consent of Travers, especially since she died in 1996?
Answer: Travers was never entirely opposed to having a sequel made. She initially refused Disney's sequel ideas, and attempted to impose her own demands and concept on what any additional film would be. In the 1980s, Travers and a friend wrote their own screenplay. The Disney company, now with different management, considered it but eventually dropped the project amid casting problems and other issues and conflicts that emerged. After Travers' death, Disney could then negotiate directly with Travers' estate.
Answer: The short answer is *because* she died. Control then passed to her beneficiaries/estate. She didn't forbid Disney from making a sequel, and she couldn't legally prevent it either. The deal she had with Disney just meant that they had to agree on it as she had creative control, and despite their (and apparently her) best efforts, they could never find a sequel idea everyone was happy with, especially given her dislike of the original film. Her will stated: "Any payments received by my Trustees in respect of or any future commercial production or exploitation in any form whatsoever of any books I have written (including any sequel to the film "Mary Poppins") shall be held by my Trustees upon trust to distribute..." On her death creative control passed to her trustees, in terms of sequels and the stage show, and they managed to agree on a sequel idea.
7th Feb 2019
Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
Question: Does Uncle Ben exist in this universe? I ask cause he's not mentioned by name but I thought I recognized him being referenced.
Answer: According to the writer of the film, yes Uncle Ben existed in this universe. When Peter mentions that Aunt May has "been through a lot lately" that was supposed to be a subtle hint at Ben Parker's recent death.
Answer: The trailer for Spider-Man: Far From Home shows Peter using an old suitcase with the initials "BFP", most likely standing for Benjamin Franklin Parker. While not directly referenced in this film, the sequel may well clarify the situation.
6th Feb 2019
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Question: Who is in charge of Oscorp now?
Answer: Donald Menken, the Vice President of Oscorp, framed Harry for covering up Max Dillon's accident and has him removed so he could take over the company. By the end of the movie, Oscorp would now be under his control.
But he was killed in a deleted scene.
Deleted scenes don't make for canon content - it has to involve a degree of guesswork. Some deleted scenes happen, we just didn't see them in the movie, others are movie ideas that were cut out precisely because they don't fit the movie as released, so didn't happen. No way to know which is which, and this is just a thought exercise anyway.
So this is possible that, at the end of this movie, Menken is still alive, right?
20th Jan 2019
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Question: Why do many people consider this to be one of the worst Marvel movies?
Answer: Having rewatched it recently I thought about this. At least partly it's because *at the time* some people felt it spent too long putting Avengers pieces in place, introducing Nick Fury more, Scarlet Widow, Tony's dad's history, etc. In hindsight however that aspect fits perfectly with the other films that came after it, so feels much less jarring now. I'd also say that Whiplash was somewhat underwhelming, and Sam Rockwell was criminally underused. Personally I'd rate Thor: The Dark World lower than this, but would also argue that the "worst" Marvel film is very much a relative term, as while some may be better than others, they've yet to really release a true stinker.
Answer: I absolutely love the MCU, and I consider this to be one of the weaker entries. Not because of world building and setting up future films, I never had a problem with that. I just personally find the story to be a little lackluster, and the villain to be rather bland (to be fair, I always thought Iron Man had a pretty weak rogues gallery anyway).
29th Dec 2018
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Is Anakin a hypocrite considering that he saved Palpatine from Mace Windu, but he killed Darth Tyranus in cold blood?
Answer: I wouldn't say so - he's loyal to Palpatine regardless. He saves him from Mace Windu, then kills Dooku/Tyranus on Palpatine's orders. I don't see the hypocrisy.
You're missing the point, Anakin saves Palpatine because he viewed him as a Father. The point of saying Anakin a hypocrite is fairly clear. Because when he was asked to kill Tyranus he did it without mercy. But he even mentioned that "It's not the Jedi way" to Palpatine. But later in the film, he saved Sidious from Mace Windu. What a hypocrite.
Answer: This is an interesting question. Early on in Episode II and III he always talks about wanting to be a better Jedi, but breaking the rules by killing Tyrannus in cold blood, killing the sand people, distrusting his mentor and friend. Being a hypocrite though, that means he judges people for breaking the rules whilst doing it himself, he doesn't do that. Nor does he pretend to say he is the most powerful or knows more than others, not while he was still an apprentice. But Anakin is so lost and confused, the fear inside him clouded his mind tremendously, being corrupted by Palpatine without seeing it, up to the point he aids Palpatine in killing Mace Windu and thus completely and permanently turning his back from the light side. He does realise this right then and there though, doesn't go on pretending he is more than just a Sith or still a Jedi, he fully gives in to the Sith ways. Although some parts of his old self creep back when he talks to Obi-Wan later on, about how he will overthrow the Chancellor and rule the galaxy as Emperor himself. At that point he becomes a hypocrite, talking to Obi-Wan like he's the one confused, talking about his powers like he is the strongest. After being beaten by Obi-Wan and thinking he killed Padme though, that all disappears and he is the silent and deadly servant of Sidious we know in IV and on.
29th Dec 2018
I, Tonya (2017)
Question: Did people actually care about figure skating? I wasn't alive when this happened, but apparently it was one of the biggest sporting controversies of all time. Well I find that quite hard to believe, since before this movie came out, I'd never heard anyone talk about figure skating, I barely even knew what it was. Was figure skating ever actually a big thing, or do people just like controversy?
Answer: It used to be a lot more popular. The Harding/Kerrigan Winter Olympic figure skating competition was the 6th highest rated program in TV history as of 1994, with 48.5 million viewers, no doubt helped by the controversy. It's slowly declined over time - from 1998 to 2018 viewing figures for the US championships declined by 1/3. Opinions about its loss of appeal range from a change in the scoring (used to be judges rating out of 6.0, now it's a more complicated points system), to a lack of "star power", with recognisable names grabbing people's attention. In the UK at least, skater team Torville and Dean were household names for a long time, but I'd imagine a lot of people would struggle to think of skaters with that level of popular recognition nowadays. That said, viewing figures for the 2018 US championships were 60% up on 2017, and membership of the US figure skating organization has risen for the last four years - these things wax and wane like any other.
27th Dec 2018
The King of Queens (1998)
Question: What's the name of the episode where Arthur hosts an open house on the Heffernan House?
Answer: S5 E3 "Holy Mackerel."
27th Dec 2018
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Question: What is ironic about the people crossing the Rio Grande River at the border of Texas, USA and Mexico?
Answer: It's far more common for people from Mexico to seek a better life by crossing into the United States, rather than the other way around.
12th Oct 2018
General questions
A random movie or TV quote has occurred to me and I can't place it. It's delivered in a faintly Al Pacino way, but I don't think it's him, saying "I will not let...these animals...", then something like "ruin my city", but I only remember the first part. Any clue what it's from?
Chosen answer: That's from the movie Bad Boys II (2003), Captain Howard played by Joe Pantoliano says it at the end of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw6WIbR1eQw.
Thank you! Not seen that in far too long.
3rd Sep 2018
True Lies (1994)
Question: Was this film a box office hit, did it flop or simply break even? I have heard nothing about it being a huge money-maker. And of all James Cameron's films, it seems to have gotten the least mention (the controversial strip tease scene might be one reason). So I was wondering if someone could clarify it once and for all?
Chosen answer: True Lies did well, earning about $379m worldwide from a $100m+ budget, the first movie to have a production budget that high. It was the third highest grossing movie of 1994.
Answer: There was supposed to be a sequel but after 9/11. Middle East Terrorism seemed in poor taste to James Cameron.
3rd Sep 2018
Friends (1994)
Question: I have recently bet my friend that at some point in the series the boys were playing penny football. Am I right? And if I'm right when did they play?
Answer: I know Friends pretty well - at least off the top of my head I can't think of a time when they did.
In season 5, episode 10: The One With The Inappropriate Sister, Chandler is playing a game on their kitchen peninsula where he launches a spoon into a large bowl while Joey sits in the living room trying to write a screenplay. Joey chastises Chandler for playing with the target so close and tells him to move it further back. They then go on to invent the game Fire Ball. Could this be what you are thinking of?
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: Short version is probably...yeah, basically. Despite "snip all the branches", certainly a few new timelines spin off from the original (Loki disappearing in 2012, Thanos/Gamora not being around in 2014, Old Steve being in our timeline or a new one, etc.) The "rules" aren't 100% clear, but that set of outcomes seems pretty likely.
Jon Sandys ★