Question: Kirk and crew deliberately disclose crucial technological secrets, extend the life of a random stranger, deliver future technology to a primitive military power, abduct a cetacean biologist, and actually contribute to the extinction of a species during their brief stay in 20th Century San Francisco. Specifically: Scotty reveals the secret of Transparent Aluminum 150 years too early; McCoy arbitrarily uses 23rd Century medicine to cure a seriously ill 20th Century woman; and Kirk chooses to remove Gillian from the 20th Century. Perhaps most importantly, Chekov leaves behind a Starfleet Communicator and a Type 2 Phaser in the hands of the U.S. Navy (who would undoubtedly dissect the devices and try to exploit the technology a couple of centuries too soon). Beyond all that, Kirk and crew abduct two breeding humpback whales, one of which is pregnant, and that certainly contributes to humpback extinction in the 21st Century. Given what we think we know about disrupting linear time continuity (many instances are cited in Star Trek canon), how did Kirk and crew return to anything even resembling their own timeline after such blatant and deliberate interference in Earth history?
Charles Austin Miller
21st Mar 2016
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Answer: They were extraordinarily lucky. The crew quite often defies all odds and encounters literal miracles. For a period of time this even happened on a roughly weekly basis.
8th Mar 2016
Drag Me To Hell (2009)
Question: Christine needs $10,000 for a dangerous seance, so she goes to the shed to gather up some items to pawn, whereupon she again encounters Lamia (as Mrs. Ganush). Christine uses her ice skate to slash a rope that conveniently drops a 100-lb blacksmith's anvil on the demon's head. After the demon vanishes, the anvil, rope and chain are seen on the floor where they fell, so it wasn't just a fantasy sequence. Why does petite little Christine Brown (or anybody, for that matter) have a 100-lb blacksmith's anvil suspended 8 feet in the air with rope and chain out in the shed?
Answer: Because it's a film and Sam Raimi obviously thought it was funny. But I did also wonder.
8th Mar 2016
The Ninth Gate (1999)
Question: How is it that Dean Corso is first on the scene of so many murders, but we never see him interacting with authorities? Corso is the first to find his murdered friend Bernie, he's the first to find the body of Fargas, and he's the first to find the Baroness strangled. Did he actually flee every murder scene without contacting the police (at least to clear his name)? Or did Roman Polanski deliberately omit police investigation scenes that might derail the plot with troublesome side-tangents?
Chosen answer: Corso is scared, both of possibly being blamed and of being the actual target.
26th Feb 2016
Interstellar (2014)
Question: Why is the film titled "Interstellar" when the plot revolves around intergalactic travel?
Chosen answer: Interstellar means travelling among the stars, no matter which galaxy you're in, which is what was going on. While intergalactic does mean travelling between galaxies, it's more indicative of being in the empty void of space between galaxies, not going from one galaxy to another. And since they travelled by wormhole, they were never really in the empty space.
Question: In the ant-attack scene, why did the Russians decide to back their truck up to the edge of the cliff and then use ropes to escape over the cliff to an uncertain fate? This defies logic. They still had at least one working vehicle (the truck) that had just engaged in a high-speed chase - they could have easily jumped aboard the truck and quickly driven out of the danger zone.
Answer: The Ants could crawl over anything and everything at rapid speed. They knew it would be a long shot to drive past them without getting consumed.
6th Jan 2016
Man of Steel (2013)
Question: During the tornado scene, Jonathan Kent rescues the dog, Hank, and in the process injures his leg. With the tornado practically on top of him, Jonathan then waves off Clark, who is only about 50 yards away. The fact that Jonathan waves off Clark is proof that they BOTH knew Clark could rescue his dad, but Jonathan didn't want Clark to expose his super powers. Still, it was Clark's DAD in danger. Why didn't Clark simply go rescue his father at super speed? Certainly, the chaos of the tornado would easily cover Clark's actions, and there would be no reliable witnesses in the midst of such confusion.
Answer: That, AND the fact that his dad is able to stand firmly on the ground whilst the tornado engulfs him, and we still see him standing to the very end as the debris in the tornado starts to hit him. That didn't make sense to me...correct me if I'm wrong, but tornadoes can and do pick up large objects like vehicles etc. and then toss them away WITHOUT the physical funnel of the tornado actually having passed over said objects. I thought once you're in the debris field, which is a separate thing from the funnel, you're already liable to be tossed up into the air and then flung out, but here, Jonathan remains standing on the ground unaffected the whole time, while the vehicle, being heavier than a human, had begun to float up in the air earlier when he went to get the dog, and then he remains standing even while the physical funnel begins to consume him - he should've been tossed up in the air long ago when the funnel was already within hundreds of feet of proximity to Jonathan.
It's certainly unrealistic but it was obviously an artistic choice. The fact that he is peacefully consumed by the funnel rather that violently tossed through the air was meant to be a poignant moment.
Answer: While I could think of several different scenarios that Clark could have done to save his dad without his abilities/powers being seen (that don't involve him moving so fast no-one sees him), ultimately (as Clark said), he let his dad die because he trusted him. "My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they'd reject me... out of fear. I let my father die because I trusted him. Because he was convinced that I had to wait. That the world was not ready."
Answer: At not point in either Man of Steel or Batman v Superman do we see Superman use speed of the type people have suggested while on the ground. The movie makes a point of outlining his abilities and some of their limits. For Clark to use that ability in that instance and nowhere else in the film would be inconsistent, so the conclusion must be that this version of the character does not have the ability to move in that manner. He might be fast-er than normal people, but not, "blink and you'll miss him fast" - otherwise it would always be an option for him throughout the film and it is not presented as such.
We know from Man of Steel that Clark is entirely capable of high-speed feats: He leaps from a crabbing boat at sea and swims to a burning oil rig easily 4 nautical miles away in a matter of not minutes but moments; and, in the logging-truck scene, Clark apparently wadded up a tractor-trailer so swiftly that nobody inside the bar, just a few yards away, heard a sound or felt an impact tremor. These were certainly acts of super speed; and Jonathan Kent certainly knew Clark could save him from the tornado, which is why he waved him off.
Next to that we see the same Superman in Justice League move at the same speed as Flash whilst on the ground.
Chosen answer: There were multiple witnesses under the bridge who may not have seen Clark, but would have seen Jonathan magically vanish and suddenly appear safe and sound a distance away.
21st Dec 2015
Z Nation (2014)
Question: In this episode, several teams of human "harvesters" wander through a greenhouse filled with vegetable-hybrid zombies, searching for specific seed pods that might cure the zombie virus. None of the harvesters survive very long inside the greenhouse, even though the translucent plastic/fiberglass greenhouse walls are never more than a few steps away. In fact, the prized "Batch 47" is discovered just feet away from the translucent wall. Why couldn't the harvesters escape from the zombies by simply charging straight through the flimsy greenhouse walls? Or, even better, why didn't they just tear out the flimsy walls from the outside and search for Batch 47 from around the perimeter? I mean, it's just a greenhouse, not Fort Knox.
Answer: When the plant zombies would attack they would wrap people with the vines and hold them, so they couldn't escape.
15th Nov 2015
General questions
I'm thinking of a live-action kids' movie from the late 1990s in which a dog is the lead character. At one point in the film, the dog takes a White House tour and views portraits of presidents with their pet dogs. One of the portraits is of Bill Clinton with his dog on a leash. There is not and never has been an official White House portrait of Bill Clinton with his dog on a leash, so the portrait in the film was painted as a movie prop. What movie is this?
9th Nov 2015
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Yesterday's Enterprise - S3-E15
Question: The motivation for this episode seems to be returning the Enterprise 1701-C to its own timeline 22 years in the past, where it will certainly be destroyed by Romulan warbirds; yet, the heroism of sacrifice will avert a protracted 22-year war with the Klingon Empire as well as avert tens of billions of Federation deaths. QUESTION: Why didn't they just SWITCH CREWS and send the far more advanced Enterprise 1701-D through the time rift and 22 years into the past? Using its advanced weaponry, defenses, and sheer speed, the Enterprise D could have easily defeated the old Romulan warbirds, saved Tasha Yar, averted the 22-year Klingon war, and saved 40 billion Federation lives. Additionally, sending the truly futuristic 1701-D into the past could have then exponentially advanced Starfleet technology into the future, making the Federation virtually invincible to its traditional enemies. It would seem that this would be the more noble, heroic and logical action of a Starfleet crew - to save lives and advance Federation survival. It would have certainly been a more thought-provoking episode, anyway.
Chosen answer: A similar question was actually asked during the episode. Captain Garrett of the Enterprise 1701-C questioned Captain Picard about the possibility of outfitting the older model Enterprise with modern technology to give them a better chance of defeating the Romulans. However, changing the course of history is pretty much forbidden in the Star Trek universe. It would be impossible to predict the impact on the future. It would be playing with fate. It just wasn't to be done. For example, suppose the updated Enterprise "C", or the replacement Enterprise "D" were to still be defeated and captured, and all of that advanced technology were to fall into Romulan hands? The impact on the timeline would be far different than the one you lay out. Guinan, with her extrasensory perception, pretty much gives Picard the solution to restoring the timeline to what she knows, and Picard eventually trusts, to be the correct one. Send the Enterprise "C" back into the time rift. For me, the only VERY perplexing question would be why Picard would EVER allow Tasha Yar to return to the past in the Enterprise 1701-C. This, we later come to know, led to Tasha's offspring becoming a Romulan military leader, thus altering the timeline, anyway. It seemed a very foolish move, based solely on emotional reasons (and a dramatic plot line).
Doing so would violate the Temporal Prime Directive which Picard already did by sending Tasha back, but considering she wasn't supposed to be part of that timeline anyway, Picard probably saw no harm even though Tasha was captured and had Sela.
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: This question has been answered a number of times by various individuals, all saying pretty much the same thing. The answers have been most satisfactory given the question revolves around a fictitious situation and the answer (s) need to be accepted as complete for this purpose. Any dispute or non-acceptance should be addressed in a Star Trek forum. Any ignoring of the Prime Directive was done to save the future of Earth, as the probe would have wiped out all life on Earth. Essentially, nothing that was done in the past resulted in major changes that would make Earth 300 years later appear any different, and no major futuristic technologies were revealed. The major one, Chekov's communicator and phaser being left behind did not result in anybody learning secrets. In the film, the phaser didn't function because of the radiation. It's presumed then the radiation permanently damaged the equipment so it appeared to be nothing but a toy or prop. However, in the novel "The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh", Roberta Lincoln was sent by Gary Seven to recover the items from Area 51 before any secrets were learned (and as stated before, additional corrections to Earth's timeline could have been done that aren't addressed in the film.) The subsequent loss of a suspicious "ruskie" would have hardly affected the era that was already in the midst of the Cold War. McCoy even questions that giving Dr. Nichols the formula for transparent aluminum could alter history to which Scotty replies what if Dr. Nichols is the one who invents it, to which McCoy agrees (in a later novel it is reveled that Scotty already knew Dr. Nichols invented transparent aluminum, so history was not changed.) The miraculous recovery of the old lady (growing a new kidney) was done by a pill so that any examination of her would not reveal the futuristic method involved. She would be a bewilderment to the medical community at best, and most likely misdiagnosis would be to blame. And just because she got a new kidney does not mean her life would have been extended, she could have died some other way in both timelines. And as stated before, Gillian simply wasn't vital to Earth's history. She could have contributed nothing of importance to society and died alone and childless. And a missing pair of breeding Humpbacks would hardly affect the extinction of their species, however in the future, they are already extinct, so little changes would occur. As for any questions about people seeing the Klingon ship in the past, who would believe them? People have long been claiming to see spaceships and aliens to little or no avail, so why would anyone believe a handful of people who said they saw aliens in a spaceship steal 2 whales? However, as with many time travel situations in films and novels, it's possible the events of the 23rd century as they appear in the beginning of the film are a result of Kirk and company's actions in the 20th century since the events already occurred even though Kirk and company had not yet done it themselves (this is where a discussion forum on the film would be advised, or a discussion forum on the theories of time travel).
Possibly the most convoluted and poorly-reasoned series of answers I've seen on this site. So far.
Charles Austin Miller
I think they're pretty logical actually.
I think your opinion would be in the minority. There is nothing exceptionally convoluted, nor poorly reasoned in the response.