Question: Did Obi-Wan know Anakin and Padme are married? Since she thinks Obi-Wan could help them with Anakin seeing with the force that Padme would die giving birth after Anakin broke the Jedi code of getting married. Doesn't it seem that Obi-Wan would not help after what Anakin had done, unless he knew about it?
BaconIsMyBFF
11th May 2017
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
20th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Chapter 5: The Gunslinger - S1-E5
Stupidity: Mando's ally breaks the fob saying he's got it memorized. Memorize a tracking device, that's new.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He means he memorized the chain code, the biometric data stored on the tracking fob. Calican already knows Fennec is headed towards the dune sea so they don't need the fob to track her location.
Beyond the dune sea, is what he says, yes, which is an enormous desert on the vaste planet. Memorizing the biometric data does not help at all without the tracking device. I took it that he memorized the positional data, but if I know someone's last known location, and that they are headed "beyond the Sahara desert" it is not really helping me find them, is it? You can make a guess, of course.
The chain code is what is used to identify the target, when they are turned in to collect the bounty. You don't need the tracking fob if you already know all the numbers in the chain code. That's the part that he memorized. It doesn't appear that the tracking fob gives you precise location data, so "In the Sahara dessert" is all you get. If the tracking fob did give more precise location data then every idiot in the galaxy would be a bounty hunter.
To identify the target he has the puck already. My point is that "Got it all memorized" is a plot device that works when your target is stationary (like The Child in the first episode), not a moving target. He smashed a -tracking - device (which took it where he is now) and then says he's "got it all memorized." You can't memorize tracking, and the chain code simply includes data like the age that are of no use for a target already well known like Fennec. What he memorized was her last known location at most... which if the fobs are as vague as you mention (one hopes that they are not just beeping dowsing rods) would make even less sense, because he wouldn't have a clue about her position and course and could be off by hundreds of miles.
The chain code contains identifying information that proves what target you've brought in. In another episode a character worries that if his chain code is scanned he will go to prison because he's a wanted man. Yes, the tracking fob is used to hunt down your target but that's not why Mando wants it and why the other bounty hunter destroys it. Without the fob, even if Mando catches Fennec he won't be able to collect the bounty because he doesn't know the chain code.
If we go with this theory, it sounds like Mando wants the money (and recognition) to bring Fennec in, but he does not care about that nor he was asking for it; the fob has a different use, and the chain code is memorized separately from that anyway (he was given in the first episode tracking The Child a fob without a chain code). The chain code is simply a code with the essential information about the subject, like a personal document. If that what he memorized, it's as if he said "Don't worry, we'll find her in the desert, I got her social security number." And if he captured Fennec, which was needed alive, he would have gotten the recognition no matter what.
I tend to agree with the mistake that the tracking fob is receiving updated biometric coordinate data, so there's no way memorize updated data, at most it would be memorizing last known coordinates. However, I would advise using terms like "Baby Yoda" if you want to be taken seriously, otherwise it looks like you haven't watched the show. There's no need to use incorrect terms just because you think people won't know who "The Child" or "Grogu" is.
1st Aug 2018
Coco (2017)
Question: Why doesn't Miguel fall through the bridge like Hector? Miguel doesn't have a picture on the table stand.
Answer: Miguel isn't dead yet. He's slowly fading away the more he stays in the land of the dead and will eventually be stuck there just like everyone else. Until he fades away he can still walk on the bridge but he needs a blessing from a family member in the land of the dead to actually get back.
While yes he is not dead, the rest of the movie becomes entirely pointless since this means he could have just walked back. Security wouldn't have stopped him because he is alive so they know that it is urgent for him to cross the bridge.
He can't just walk back. He can walk on the bridge but he can't actually get back to the land of the living unless he gets a blessing from a family member.
It was Miguel taking the guitar that put him in his dead/not dead state, not crossing the bridge. Miguel was already only able to be seen and interact with the dead while they were all still in the cemetery on the living side of the bridge. It stands to reason then that crossing back to where he started wouldn't help.
4th Aug 2006
My Cousin Vinny (1992)
Corrected entry: Why is Joe Pesci referred to as "Mr. Gambini" continuously by the judge, if he is supposedly "Jerry Gallo" and later "Jerry Callo"? Why doesn't the judge call him "Mr. Gallo" if that's who he thinks he is?
Correction: Early in the movie, Joe Pesci explains to the judge that Gambini is his "working name" and the name he is registered under is "Gallo" and later, "Callo." The judge buys it. Why? Who knows? But because they explained it that way, the judge is not making mistakes by calling him Gambini.
In addition, Vinny directly tells Judge Haller to continue calling him "Gambini" when the Judge first questions him about the two names.
2nd Jan 2017
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: I have never understood why Luke and Leia needed to be hidden with two different families. As a princess, Leia is actually in the public eye. It would have been much safer to let Owen and Beru raise her along with Luke. Why keep them apart?
Answer: The reason they are split is so if one is discovered they still have the other. Leia certainly lives a much more public life but she could easily be passed off as the daughter of Bail Organa since she takes his last name and lives as his daughter. The real question is why on earth would Obi Wan give Luke to family that Vader is aware of and let him keep the Skywalker name?
Adding to this, Tatooine wouldn't be somewhere where Vader would want to go. He doesn't have fond memories there e.g. death of his mother, slaying all those Tuscan raiders.
Also, if I remember correctly, no-one knew she was having twins. Everyone knew she was pregnant, so when Luke showed up it wasn't necessarily questioned. Leia was given to another family so no-one would put it together that she was also Vader's child and therefore hiding her from existence.
Answer: Nobody knew Luke and Leia were alive, most did not know they existed, others thought they were dead. If someone with the name of Skywalker were around, it could be anyone. Aunt Uncle, Cousin, not necessarily the Skywalker. Besides, the Empire was busy fighting and maintaining control of an entire Galaxy.
It certainly could be a popular name, but it is still tempting fate since this particular Skywalker is being raised by Anakin's step-brother. A step-brother that Anakin is not only aware of but has personally met. Also, once Vader finds out that the pilot who blew up the Death Star was named Skywalker, he knows that young man must be his son.
Answer: Obi-Wan said they needed to be taken somewhere where the Sith could not sense their presence and then Yoda said they needed to be separated, which one could assume was to increase the chance the Sith won't sense them. They also made it seem like Padme was still pregnant when she died, meaning everyone would think her child (ren) died before being born. Leia being in the public eye wasn't really a factor or concern. Bail and his wife had always talked about adopting a girl, so when they took Leia, no-one would question where she came from, especially if the Organas appeared loyal to the Emperor. In "There is Another" (from "From a Certain Point of View", considered canon), it's suggested Yoda's plan was to train Leia and not Luke. So sending Luke to live with his family would hopefully limit his development of the force, limit his involvement with the Empire, and if discovered, draw attention away from Leia.
2nd Nov 2020
Alien (1979)
Question: The Alien brings Brett and Dallas back to its nest alive in order to create more Aliens. It seems that Brett had died in the process but Dallas is still alive. How then would the alien impregnate them without facehuggers complete with an egg?
Answer: It's possible that Brett was the only one being turned into an egg and that Dallas was merely stuck to the wall to be the eventual facehugger host.
Dallas is more than just merely stuck to the wall. He is in physical agony, his eyes appear to no longer work properly, and he has barely enough strength to muster more than a couple words. And the words he can get out are him pleading with Ripley to end his suffering.
Rather than burning Dallas to death it would have been more humane to let him blow up with the ship.
Perhaps so, but Dallas was pleading for his suffering to end right then and there. It appeared that the burning was no more agonizing than what he was going through, which means he must have been in immense pain already.
Answer: Actually the alien was using Brett and Dallas to make new facehugger eggs. The scene, only shown in the Director's Cut, shows Brett partway through being turned into an egg and Dallas in what appears to be the very beginning of this process. This scene was cut from the theatrical release and as such, James Cameron did not include this feature of the alien lifecycle in the sequel. Cameron showed the eggs are laid by a queen and the franchise has continued with this approach since Aliens and has never revisited the idea that alien eggs are created from the bodies of humans. Since this scene only appears in the Director's Cut, its status as canon remains in question. However, some fans reconcile this by theorizing that in the absence of a queen a single alien can use human bodies to create more facehuggers.
18th Nov 2020
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Question: Why did John Travolta have his gun drawn while talking to the guy in the car who he accidentally shoots?
Answer: He is careless with it, and doesn't think about if it might accidentally fire. There are safety protocols when dealing with guns for a reason. Gangsters just chose to ignore them.
22nd Nov 2020
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Question: Can someone please put to bed a question that has been raised and not answered...why would the terrorists try to blow McClane up with grenades that have enough of a delay to make a quick coffee in?
Answer: There is no in-universe explanation...they didn't go to an arms dealer and say, "Give us your longest-fused grenades, we want to give our target a sporting chance." There is no deleted scene where Col. Stuart wonders aloud why those grenades took so long to explode, while making himself a coffee. This-the hero in a deadly situation and escaping in the nick of time, regardless of how long grenades actually take to explode in the real world-is an action movie trope and nothing more, in a film that is chock full of them. It would be a pretty sad movie, not to mention a bad one, if McClane got blown to bits by grenades, and the bad guys won.
But surely they could have filmed this scene in slo-mo to stretch out the 7 second delay to whatever it becomes, OR edited it in such a way it appears to take longer when it actually doesn't?
The grenade fuse time is deliberately lengthened so the audience can process what is happening. The audience has to see the danger of the grenades, understand that McClane must get out of the cockpit without the bad guys shooting him, see McClane think of the ejector seat plan, and then execute that plan. It's ridiculously unrealistic but McClane is meant to be clever and resourceful so the audience has to see him work out the problem. If you used slo-mo it would make it seem like McClane instantly figured out a solution, which would make him look superhuman.
Answer: It's worth noting that they wouldn't have to pull the pins out of all the grenades, just one. That one would cause the others to explode as well.
31st Aug 2020
50 First Dates (2004)
Corrected entry: Lucy's dad brings up the idea for her to paint his shed. The script should have had Lucy wanting to do that on her own - without that prompting there'd be no need for them to bother repainting it every night, which they clearly don't enjoy doing.
Correction: Lucy's dad and brother go to great lengths to re-enact everything that happened the day of the accident, including having Lucy paint the garage. They don't really want to do any of the things they do on that day, including eating the cake and watching The Sixth Sense.
But why wouldn't they just go and pick the pineapple instead of dad prompting her to paint the shed? Then he wouldn't have to paint over it every night.
Because painting the shed makes her happy. They are sacrificing their time and effort, at great exhaustion, to keep her happy.
Going to pick the pineapple puts them in public and gives a much greater chance of her finding out the secret and having a bad day.
It absolutely does, and it does lead to some issues when she gets pulled over for expired tags. Dad and brother's plan was not very well planned out and certainly wasn't smart, but that doesn't constitute a mistake in the film. People make poor decisions all the time.
21st Sep 2020
X-Men: First Class (2011)
Question: If Magneto didn't kill Shaw, what would they have done? It seems like killing him was the only possible way to stop him.
Answer: Charles wanted to incapacitate Shaw and all he needed to do this was to get the helmet off. Once the helmet is off Charles could freeze Shaw and they could figure out a way to hold him. With no helmet Shaw is very little threat (if at all) to Charles. Erik kills a defenseless man unnecessarily.
Actually Xavier says that he can only control this man for so long. Meaning he was struggling keeping him frozen like that. They didn't have forever. An option for Xavier could have been to release Shaw once he knew what Erik was going to do but that could cause Shaw to go nuclear on the spot and kill everyone.
Yes, he could only hold him for so long but instead of taking the opportunity to incapacitate/capture him, Erik steals the helmet, gloats, and then slowly pushes a coin through his head.
I'm not sure what the actual plan was. Charles freezing was the only thing preventing Shaw from killing everyone. Even if Erik manages to wrap Shaw into something, as soon as his mind is free he will be able to use his abilities. He killed him slowly, which was unnecessary, but killing him was the only option IMHO.
31st Aug 2020
Jurassic Park (1993)
Character mistake: When Genarro is explaining to Hammond that he is at the park to report Hammond's progress to the investors, he says "In 48 hours if they're not impressed, I'm not impressed. We'll shut you down, John." He should have said "If I'm not impressed, they're not impressed" since the investors would be shutting down the park on his advice, not the other way around.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He'll be the one to shut it down, not the investors. They gave him the ability to do that. So once he hears they are not impressed, he'll be shutting it down.
That still makes the statement backwards, since he is representing the investors interests, not his own. The way he words it suggests even if they weren't impressed but he was, he could keep the park open of his own accord. The buck stops with the investors.
There's actually already a submission just like this one in the Corrections section, with the correction - provided by JC Fernandez - noting that Genarro is referring to the scientists that have to be convinced that the park is ready to open, and that if the scientists aren't convinced, then Genarro will not be convinced either, and he will notify the investors of it.
Didn't see that correction before. When reviewing the scene in question Genarro does ever so slightly gesture behind himself when he says "they", which I had not noticed before.
14th Aug 2020
Frequency (2000)
Factual error: A ham radio requires the person to hold down the button while talking. Numerous times in the movie they are talking without pushing the button.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is actually subtly addressed in the film. The magic which allows the radio to work across time also allows the two men to speak without pressing the button. There is a moment where Frank wonders what is going on with the radio and presses the button a few times to talk but then notices that he doesn't have to press the button to be heard.
If that was true, then it wouldn't make sense for them to continue to show Frank and John hitting the squawk bar throughout the film.
That is a separate issue. The mistake entry states that you need to hold the button to talk on a ham radio, which is true, but the magic ham radio in the film doesn't require it. If the actors continue to occasionally press the button that could be considered a character mistake but it could also simply be a force of habit by the characters.
13th Nov 2018
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: They didn't make it out of the cave with the grail because they dawdled... I wonder, would someone be able to make it out running at a dead sprint once they crossed the seal? And if so, does that mean that they're home free? Or would disaster follow them outside of the cave?
Answer: The implication is that disaster would follow them outside of the cave as well. It wouldn't make much sense if you could simply outrun the disaster.
"Followed by disaster" is a kind of curse, a thing not common in Christianity. It doesn't make much sense anyhow. A seal is just a dot - OK, so let's at least grant that the seal represents a circle that the grail has to stay in. Who decided where those borders are? The grail was taken there during the first crusade. That was closer to 1938 than it was to 33 AD. The three knights could move the grail about then. Why not afterwards? The knights could have built the traps. But the borders could only have been set by god, in an unusually late and completely atypical miracle.
There are several examples of curses in the Christian Bible: Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at Sodom, the plagues visited upon Egypt, Adam and Eve are cursed for eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, etc. The knights did not move the grail around after finding it, they stayed in the temple for 150 years and then two left leaving the third behind. The great seal and it's restriction was already in place when the knights got there.
Where in the movie is that stated? I interpreted the knight's story as them having made that place. Looks like it isn't actually specified. But if God made it, then I submit that he would have used Greek, not Latin, for the stepping stones. (All of those curses are from the old testament. The book where god kills firstborn children as long as they're Egyptian. Grail is by definition new testament where you turn the other cheek. There simply are no curses in the gospel, that's just not how Jesus rolled).
The tests were made by the knights, but the seal had God's power in it. Just like the cup.
It's still a bit dodgy. What if you take a shovel and dig yourself a back door? Basically this film really excels at stuff that makes no sense but helps the storytelling, or to be precise, creates dramatic effects.
Every fictional story is like that in some way. That's why it's called fictional. It's just a story.
Not a particularly convincing argument, "stuff happens for no reason all the time", if I may say so. Why is this website even here then? The fact is that some stories are more coherent than others. (♫ "In olden days, a hole in the plot, would seem to matter, quite a lot. Now heaven knows, anything goes..." ♫);).
It's the difference in what story they want told. Is it a fairy tale or based on actual events? A huge difference in plausibility between the two. The site is there to look at mistakes, not how believable the story is.
It is not set in another universe so plausibility isn't somehow suspended. Maybe take a look at the categories recognised by this website. Plot holes, factual errors, even stupidity. (They? Who are they?).
It is set in a fictional universe because it's not a true story. With "they" I mean the writers/director. Mistakes in a plot (plot holes) have nothing to do with how believable the story is. As long as it's plausible, it's not a mistake.
Pretty sure it's the same universe, just with some added characters/events. What about the total lack of spaceships or orcs or talking animals for example? The seal business is not a mistake YET, but it's very dodgy because no-one knows how it works or why. Like all Indys "trapped" secret places, it's (among other things) unclear who resets the traps for the next visitor. We can't brush it ALL off as "the hand of god" every time.
Huge amounts of stuff in films isn't exhaustively explained. Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that's perfectly believable. There's zero evidence either way to say how "followed by disaster" would manifest, and just because there's not a thorough explanation doesn't mean that it's "dodgy", and it's not worth bickering about either, because there's no concrete answer either way.
OK but I would like to note that not everyone who offers creative explanations has recently seen the movie; some people just invent their own. E.g. "followed by disaster" is not an actual explanation from the movie, it was just one of the suggestions made here and only here. Or the ones on my own question below. All I'm saying is, it's very hard to tell what the "rules" / "logic" of this place are supposed to be, so I understand what the OP was driving at.
8th Oct 2019
The Fugitive (1993)
Other mistake: After the train crash the news crews and sheriff are interviewing the surviving corrections officer. He boasts how heroic he was to rescue his partner from the wreckage, claiming that he was his partner and he would do the same for him. The only problem is that they are surprised when they find that same surviving corrections officer several scenes later and rush him to the hospital. Why would they be surprised to find an officer they already knew about?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The first corrections officer had been exposed as a liar and made up the story that Kimble and Copeland were dead. Nobody believed he heroically saved his partner. Everyone assumed since the partner hadn't been found right away that he died in the wreck. It never occurred to anyone that Kimble would put his own life on the line to save a guard, so actually finding the guard alive was a surprise.
There is nothing formally wrong with the order of events here. The assumption is that the second officer's whereabouts are known at the time of the senior officer's story - but that is actually only an assumption. Finding the second officer would of course not be important to the main story in any way, and thus this sub-story was not explained in the movie. To word it an alternative better way, why would the senior officer make up this story of saving the second officer, if the officer had not been located yet?
The second officer's whereabouts are most certainly not known when the first officer is interviewed. The first officer is interviewed the night of the crash and the second officer is found the next morning.
27th Jan 2020
General questions
When I was a little kid I checked out a Batman graphic novel from the library. It had a lot of his rogues gallery in it, most if not all of whom were killed in it. I specifically remember Catwoman being shot and her dying words were along the lines of "Batman, I'm so cold." Batman then kissed her before she died. Does anyone know what the name of this graphic novel/storyline is?
Answer: All Stars #17?
Based on my Google search results, "All-Star Batman" is a more recent publication. The year I read the book in question was probably 1993, so it was probably published in the late 80s or early 90s.
I believe the answer should have been DC Super-Stars #17. That issue features the death of the Earth Two Selina Kyle as part of the origin story of her daughter, Helena Kyle (The Huntress).
That's not it either, unfortunately. I specifically remember Killer Croc being in this, because it was the first time I ever heard of him, and he didn't debut until 1983, six years after DC Superstars #17. I think Batman killed Joker at the end out of revenge for Catwoman. With so many other characters being killed in it, I'm pretty certain it was an Elseworld story and not connected to whatever the main DC universe is or was at the time.
6th Jul 2020
Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)
Corrected entry: In this film the aliens are said to be operating with a hive mind, and are all telepathically linked to the alien queen on the mothership. It is also stated the mothership from the first film also had a queen that was never seen. If that is the case, then there would not have been any need in the first film to use Earth's satellites to coordinate the attack.
Correction: There could be a distance factor involved. The mothership in the first film stayed outside of Earth's atmosphere. The Harvester ship in this film landed on Earth with the queen on board. In the first film the city destroyers entered Earth's atmosphere at areas around the world. So it could be that they needed to use the satellites in the first film to coordinate with the Destroyers inside Earth's atmosphere which were spread all around the world. Also, in this film The Queen goes to Area 51 on board her personal ship and she controls the fighters which are very close to her as she exits her ship therefore not needing any satellites.
The aliens didn't need the satellites to control their ships, they only needed them to send a countdown timer to one another (which is ludicrous all on its own). They are linked telepathically to one another in addition to the queen, former President Whitmore, Dr. Okun, and Umbutu. These people are all spread all over the planet and still have a link to the aliens. Also, the captured aliens rejoice in unison when they realise the queen is coming yet they are nowhere near her and have no means of knowing this other than their psychic link.
19th May 2009
The Great Escape (1963)
Factual error: When the SS and Gestapo are leaving Bartlett in Von Luger's office on his arrival in the camp, they all give the Nazi salute with bent arms. The correct form was a straight outstretched arm and hand: only Hitler himself was allowed to give the Hitler salute so sloppily.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Absolute rubbish. And Von Luger was a Luftwaffe officer, not a die hard Nazi.
You need to explain why you believe this is incorrect. Do you mean they actually give proper salutes? Do you mean it isn't a mistake to show an officer give an improper salute? Do you mean the Nazi's weren't as strict on salute protocol as the mistake suggests?
Von Luger's disgust of the Gestapo is shown when Big X is returned from custody. I have rendered a sloppy salute to a particular officer to make a point.
22nd Jun 2020
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: The crew finds half a dozen face huggers in the med lab, and two of them are still alive. One tries to attach to Burke when he gets too close to the glass case. If a face hugger was able to break the much tougher glass of Kane's space suit's helmet in the first film and attach to him, why wouldn't it be able to break through this less durable glass in this film to get on Burke?
Correction: The creature doesn't break the glass to Kane's helmet, it melts its way in with acid. Presumably the liquid in the container neutralizes the acid somehow. Also, we have no idea what either the helmet glass or the container are actually made of. The container is made of a material strong enough to withstand the strength of the facehugger.
A laboratory jar that is made of material stronger than that of the faceplate of a space helmet that is designed to withstand a pressure differential like that between atmospheric pressure and a vacuum. Yes, that's going to happen.
This is both a futuristic movie and there is a 57 year gap between movies. And it isn't a "laboratory jar", it's some sort of made up stasis device. It is completely plausible that a stasis device would be more durable than a helmet made nearly 60 years prior. But the point is moot because the alien in the first film never breaks the helmet, it melts it.
Even the strongest acid cannot corrode a glass beaker, but it could easily corrode other transparent materials. It isn't a matter of how "strong" it is, it's a matter of chemistry. We don't know what the faceplates of the space suits are made of, but current day ones are made of polycarbonate plastics.
Correction: Probably because the facehugger doesn't have anything to hold on to and break the glass.
25th Oct 2018
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
Question: What does Fridge do now if he's still kicked off the football team by the end of the movie? It seems that only Spencer, Bethany, and Martha had some character growth, but not Fridge.
Answer: Fridge absolutely had character growth. He learned to value others as actual friends instead of using people to make his life easier. He learned to have respect for less popular students. He learned that physical strength can't solve all your problems. He learned the true value of teamwork. He never would have learned any of these lessons had he not played Jumanji.
What about Spencer? What kind of character growth did he have?
Primarily he gains confidence and self-esteem. He learns to be more decisive but also seems to have much more courage than before.
Answer: Spencer learned to be more confident in himself.
6th May 2020
Arachnophobia (1990)
Factual error: With Irv and Blaire, one of them picks up the handful of popcorn and presumably eats the spider. While inside the eater, the spider would bite and poison whoever it was inside. When they find both of them dead, the spider crawls out of one person. Why would it leave one body and actually take the trouble to go inside the other rather than just bite them on the skin like the others? It's not like it would crawl out and back into the bowl to be eaten by the other person.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: We actually don't see either Irv or Blaire "eat" the spider at all. We just see Blaire take a handful of popcorn with the spider inside. Next we see both dead bodies, and then a spider crawls out of Irv's nostril. So the spider could have bitten both people on their skin in short order and then crawled into Irv's body, for whatever reason, after he was already dead. Or, there could be two completely different spiders that killed the pair at around the same time. As the action happens off-screen, it can't be a factual error, we simply don't know exactly what happened.
The whole scene doesn't make sense. The fact that Irv pours the butter on the popcorn with the spider in the bowl, Blaire doesn't feel the spider in her hand when she picks it up with the popcorn, and they are still sitting in the same position watching Wheel of Fortune after being bitten. Only Irv's Coca-Cola can is lying on the floor with some popcorn pieces. The popcorn bowl is still on Blaire's lap, showing they did not have seizures to the spider's venom like the other victims. It also doesn't make sense that the spider doesn't bite Irv when he carries the bowl from the kitchen to the living room.
The mistake entry as written states that the spider is eaten by one person and then eaten by another, with both people dying afterwards. Since we do not actually see that happening, this doesn't count as a Factual Error. The fact that the victims do not seem to have violently seized prior to death should be submitted as a separate entry.
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: Obi Wan didn't know they were married. He only realises Anakin is the father of Padme's child after noticing her emotional response when he asks if she knows where Anakin is. Even though Anakin has broken the Jedi code Padme still thinks Obi Wan might help them because he is their best friend. At worst Anakin would be expelled from the Jedi and the controversy would end Padme's political career but she makes it clear she doesn't care about any of that. Anakin, however does and shoots down the idea.
BaconIsMyBFF
The fact that they keep the relationship secret baffles me a bit. I mean, they live together in a city. They were obviously shown as close in AOTC.
It makes very little sense, to the point of being absurd. It is portrayed as if Obi-Wan and Anakin are best friends, but Obi-Wan never even asks where Anakin lives when he's not on duty.
BaconIsMyBFF
It's not like Obi-Wan and Anakin carpool or invite each other to dinner. They are Jedi partners, in service of the Republic and Jedi Order. Even if it were all happening on 1 planet Anakin and Padme could easily keep their marriage a secret, let alone from Jedi who travel from system to system and are extremely busy all the time.
lionhead