Corrected entry: In the scene after Ron destroys the locket, he tells Harry "Only three Horcruxes left". There are seven horcruxes and only three have been destroyed, so there would really be four left.
lionhead
29th Nov 2010
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
17th Mar 2020
Watchmen (2009)
Question: Did this movie have some sort of point? That genocide of several million to prevent war was a good idea? That and how did they avoid being sued considering Batman's got an Owl Man, a Spider Woman was in existence before this spider super heroine and the white masked guy seems to be a take on The Question.
Answer: Why would they be sued? DC own both the DC comics properties and the Watchmen characters.
Answer: You forgot where DC ended up owning Captain Marvel claiming he was a Super Man ripoff and how Marvel sued the name away from the character.
Answer: There is no "spider super heroine" in this movie. Silk Spectre has no superpowers, so I'm not sure where you're getting the connection to Spider-Woman from. Watchmen is a DC property, as are Batman and The Question, who was acquired by DC several years before the Watchmen graphic novel was published, so there would be no plagiarism lawsuits in response. The point of the movie, much like the graphic novel it is based on, is to illustrate the dangers of nuclear tension and war, and how regular people pay the price of the actions of contentious governments.
And to show that someone who is supposedly super-smart is also usually super-insane.
Bob Kane undoubtedly received royalties for creating Batman, but the character is owned by DC. It's not as if he had the right to start his own comic book company and take Batman away from DC, so even if he felt slighted by Nite Owl II having some similarities to Batman, he would have no legal grounds to sue for it. Furthermore, characters would have to be blatant ripoffs in many ways in order for comic book companies to be able to sue over. Marvel and DC have many characters that are similar in powers, appearance, etc, but those similarities are usually so superficial that they can be dismissed as homages or parodies and it would prove difficult for one company to sue the other over it. A really good example would be Deadpool who was practically created as a parody of Deathstroke. The only case I can think of where a lawsuit had enough merit to go to court was Marvel suing Awesome Entertainment for redesigning Fighting American into a shameless ripoff Captain America.
Question: Jack Sparrow comes to Port Royal to commandeer a ship, but gets stopped by two marines, who tell him the dock is off limits to civilians. Why is the dock off limits to civilians?
Answer: Because it's a navy dock, not a public one and there are naval ships moored there.
Jack would have been able to get one the of ships if he had permission.
Ok. But my question is are naval docks off limits to keep civilians from stealing or sabotaging their ships?
One of those civilians could be a pirate you know.
13th Mar 2020
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: I heard there was a scene where Ron and Hermione hug but it was cut. Does anyone know at what point in the movie this hug would have taken place?
Answer: Other than when Hermione turns to Ron and puts her arms around his shoulders after the Trio thinks they've just witnessed Buckbeak's execution, there does not appear to be any other time when she hugs or embraces Ron. All of the Azkaban deleted scenes are online or were included with the DVD and none contain this.
My understanding is that the specific scene where she put her arm around Ron was actually supposed to be a real hug but Emma Watson didn't feel comfortable doing it so they changed it to only an arm.
It was more than just her arms, she had her face buried in his neck.
23rd Aug 2005
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Corrected entry: Why does Hogwarts have modern (muggle) toilets? I know that it is a main focal point for the plot, but if the school is really as old as they say, it surely wasn't built with them. They must have had some magical method of waste disposal (the 'scurgify' spell), and surely a way to create water, so why resort to installing plumbing and a (supposedly inefficient) muggle technology. They don't use electricity, Television, Internet, etc., so why plumbing?
Correction: Even if they don't use Muggle technology, not having indoor plumbing would be a hassle. They also use Muggle sinks. It's also a major plot point that the Basilisk travels through the school using the plumbing.
Not to mention wizards have been shown to use other muggle tech from triple decker buses to brooms to cameras to trains. Even the castle itself is an example (if you can have a massive room in a briefcase, why bother building a huge fortress unless it's because of the personal taste of the wizards involve). It's stated in the books that electricity doesn't work well around magic, hence no internet, but the wizarding community does use mechanical or chemical muggle tech that's often modified by magic.
Yep, I feel they are only a few steps behind on the muggle world in terms of technology, like early 20th century whilst it's the end of the 20th century. They obviously look at the muggle world and see what they can adapt to their world if it's useful. I'd say plumbing must have been introduced somewhere in the late 19th century for wizards. It's just that most aren't interested in the muggle world. It probably has to be a muggle-born wizard that tries to adapt muggle tech into the wizarding world. I mean Arthur is pretty interested in the muggle world so it's logical he owns a car.
Question: After Elizabeth is brought to the Pearl, she threatens to drop the medallion overboard. Barbossa feigns disinterest but when Elizabeth pretends to drop it, the pirates gasp in panic. Why? So she drops it, big deal. They can't drown, the gold "calls to them" so what does it matter if she were to drop it?
Chosen answer: Because they'd have to find it. The gold may "call to them", but it obviously doesn't function as a millimetre perfect homing beacon or they'd never have missed the medallion years earlier when they attacked the ship carrying the young Will. Elizabeth drops it into the sea and they're going to have to spend what could be months trying to locate it - currents could take it well away from the dropping point. They've found the final missing piece; they're potentially just hours away from finally being cured. The last thing they want is to see it thrown into the sea.
Well, if the crew was anxious to get the medallion then why did they act like they weren't interested in it before Elizabeth pretended to drop it?
What do you mean by reverse psychology?
By showing they are not interested in the medallion they are hoping Elizabeth will just drop it on the floor or chuck it to them as it's of no real value. However when she releases a bit of chain and the medallion drops, and the pirates lurch forward revealing that they really want the medallion and as such Elizabeth now has the upper hand in negotiations.
I'm guessing Elizabeth wasn't fooled when the pirates showed disinterest in the medallion.
That's not called reverse psychology, which is used to encourage someone to change his or her mind. Doesn't work with a threat. They are feigning indifference to hide the importance of the object.
26th May 2014
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Question: Why do the Dursleys try to stop Harry from going to Hogwarts? It seems as though they would be happy to get him out of their house (except for summers).
Answer: Petunia and Vernon despise wizards and swore they would 'squash the magic out of him' (which obviously can't happen) when they took him in. They would rather have Harry around all the time and for him not to be a wizard than to allow him to go to Hogwarts where he would learn magic and be happy (It says in the books that the two things that Vernon Dursley despises most if magic and making Harry happy).
Why don't the Dursleys try to get Harry back if they don't want him to be at Hogwarts?
Because on the other hand they are glad to be rid of him.
Why do they despise making Harry happy?
Because they despise the fact he and his parents are wizards.
Or as Petunia states in the book "as soon as they had you I knew you'd be like them. A freak" The Durselys are very middle class who consider themselves high class. The fancy car, expensive house, private school for Dudley etc. And being associated with an outcast would in their eyes seriously hurt their social standings.
Answer: Vernon and Petunia are very concerned with appearances and maintaining a "proper" lifestyle. The books describe how they want a perfect lawn. Vernon judges men by the cars they drive. Petunia keeps the home very clean, etc. They hope to ignore the Wizard world and force Harry to live like a Muggle. In addition to that, Petunia was jealous of her sister. She wanted to separate herself from the Wizard world as much as possible. When Harry begins attending Hogwarts, she can no longer do that.
5th Nov 2003
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Corrected entry: One of the well known reasons the Germans were defeated in Stalingrad was - snow. But in this movie there is just mud on the ground, but no snow.
Correction: Most of the battle was fought in late summer and autumn. Historical photographs look just like the movie set.
The Battle of Stalingrad lasted from August 1942 to February 1943. There most certainly would have been snow during the winter months. But in any case, the events depicted in the film occurred before the snow came in, the duel supposedly took place before the Soviet Counterattack (Operation Uranus).
However the problem here is that this film follows a fictionalised version of Vasily Zaytsev. The sniper with a total confirmed kill count of over 220 during the battle of Stalingrad. Vasily didn't join the battle until November 10th 1942. Meaning that the snow would already be on the ground when he joined making your point that the events took place prior to the snow coming in is null and void. Sorry.
Vasily Zaitsev was in Stalingrad since September 1942. Also there is no indication there was snow untill the end of November, which is when Operation Uranus started. So he events probably took place in September or October. No snow has to be there.
29th Oct 2018
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Question: Considering how big the Basilisk is, how is it able to travel through the pipes in Hogwarts since so many of them are small?
So how was it able to get into the girls restroom and kill Moaning Myrtle many years ago? All of those pipes in the restroom aren't large enough.
The girls' bathroom is the entrance to the chamber of secrets. She was in there when Tom Riddle opened it and let the snake out.
Answer: Perhaps the basilisk is a magical creature and can change size at any given time to fit into those tiny pipes.
Yes like the Occamy in fantastic beasts and where to find them.
7th Feb 2019
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Question: When Marty suggests (in 1985A) that they go back to 2015 to stop Old Biff from taking the almanac in the first place, Doc says no because it'll be 2015A instead. When Old Biff went from 2015 to 1955 to give himself the almanac, when he came back to 2015 again, it was still the same one he left because Marty and Doc are just getting Jennifer out of the new McFly house when he returns. So what's the difference? If Biff can go from 1955 to 2015, without it becoming 2015A, then why can't Marty and Doc do it from 1985A?
Answer: There is a deleted scene on the DVD that answers this. You will notice that when Biff returns to 2015 it appears as if he is dying, on the deleted scene when Marty and Doc leave 2015 you see Biff vanish which suggests the "ripple effect" of Biff giving the Almanac to his younger self places everyone in an Alternate 2015 which Biff is no alive to see so is erased from existence. I have seen somewhere a suggestion Biff was shot in 1996, chances are with Biff gone by 2015 Hill Valley may have been a more peaceful city again. Hilldale was a run down suburb in the original 2015 and could have been the same in an Alternate 2015, we never saw inside any houses at that point to answer where Marty may have lived in an Alternative 2015 but perhaps in Switzerland.
Answer: The implication is that Biff returned to 2015 before the consequences of his younger self's actions took effect. Biff would have returned to 2015 immediately, as he wouldn't want to risk Marty and Doc discovering that he had stolen the DeLorean. By the time Marty and Doc travel back to 1985, the consequences of Biff's actions have solidified.
Answer: The reason Biff arrives like that is because Lorraine found out that he murdered George and shot him.
Where did you get that from please?
That info is reported to be from the audio commentary to a deleted scene, published on the official DVD. Since the scene has been filmed, it might even be considered canonical (as opposed to ideas from the drafting stage of the script which, ultimately, were abandoned).
Are those tidbits of information, such as this DVD commentary track, considered canonical?
7th Sep 2009
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: When Hermione says 'I thought I just saw. Never mind' what did she think she saw?
Chosen answer: She thought she saw herself, which would have been impossible, if not for the Timeturner that Prof. McGonigall gave her. She saw a flash of the scene as it appears when she and Harry revisit that moment in time.
I have watched it several times and cannot see any part of Hermione behind the tree. What part did she see?
As we see later in the film, Hermione #2 is looking around the tree and a twig snaps, causing Hermione #1 to quickly turn around and catch a glimpse of Hermione #2 before she gets her body behind the tree. By the time the camera is showing that portion of the forest Hermione #2 is fully behind the tree so we don't see anything at that time, which is on purpose since the audience isn't supposed to know the movie's later events yet.
But when Hermione #1 turns around, what part of Hermione #2 does she see?
We don't see her, she saw herself.
But what part of herself did she see?
24th Mar 2016
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Plot hole: When Clarice visits Lecter in his new makeshift cell, she brings his drawings, which were left behind in Baltimore. She tells him how she saw the lambs being killed and heard them screaming, taking one lamb with her when she ran away. As the guards approached his cell after she leaves, the camera pans across the cell, taking in the drawings Clarice had brought, and the top one is a very detailed drawing of Clarice holding a spring lamb. She only told just told Lecter about the lamb, not enough time for him to have done that drawing.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: First; I do agree and support the mistake. But playing devil's advocate for a moment; she told him back in Baltimore about the ranch and how they had sheep and horses, so in theory he could have already started drawing back then and figure that a memory about the place was linked to those animals, adding the exact detail afterwards. Should also be noted that the guards approach the cell 'after she leaves', yes, but it's an 'after' that happens after she already flew back all the way from Memphis, so a few hours later.
Your last sentence corrects the mistake, the top drawing is new and wasn't brought by Clarice. You can see chalk on top of the drawing indicating he had just made it. Several hours passed between her delivering her story and him receiving his dinner.
13th Jan 2008
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Question: Can anyone explain why Calypso caused the maelstrom to appear? Other than provide really cool visual effects for the movie, it didn't serve a purpose. I would have thought she'd do something against Davy Jones and/or his ship in particular for betraying her in the first place.
Answer: It's suggested that, as she's pretty much equally annoyed at the pirates (for originally imprisoning her, even if it wasn't specifically those pirates) and at Davy Jones (for showing them how to do it), that she creates the maelstrom to make it an even fight - effectively telling them that she no longer cares for either side. The conditions within the maelstrom hamper the Black Pearl, the turbulence making it difficult to bring her superior speed into play, but the angle and extremely damp conditions also make it harder for the Flying Dutchman to bring her superior firepower to bear.
Wrong. As the Black Pearl was meant for speed, she would have a lighter weight than the Dutchman, and would require a pushing force to stay even. Furthermore, she was not hampered by the wind-she was aided, as Gibbs stated, "The wind's on our side, boys!"
Don't think weight had anything to do with it. The Pearl was heavier than the Interceptor, but had no issue catching up with it. The maelstrom took the Pearl's superior speed out of play because they were forced to circle one another. There was no advantage to be gained by outspeeding the Dutchman around the whirlpool, and coming up on its rear. Remember, the Pearl had no forward cannons.
The other side thought they had a favorable wind as well. All the air was being pulled toward the maelstrom in the middle so both sides thought it was at their back allowing them to control the engagement.
Both sides did have favourable winds but for a different reason. It's mentioned in Dead Man's Chest that against the wind the Dutchman is faster but with the wind the Pearl is faster. The Pearl had a favourable wind because it was blowing her sails from the back whilst the Dutchman had a favourable wind because she is faster against it.
The Dutchman is faster against wind because it uses oars to row. They menton to go deeper into the maelstrom to get into faster waters. Thats how they outran the Dutchman and got broadside. It's got nothing to do with the wind.
No, the Dutchman doesn't use any oars, you are thinking back to the first film when the Pearl is chasing the Interceptor and they use oars to go faster. Neither ship is fitted with a diesel engine so it has EVERYTHING to do with the wind.
Oh, you're right. I got confused in the 2. Not sure about the diesel engine though. May have one hidden in the back.
10th Feb 2020
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Question: Gaston sings that he ate eggs to help him get large. Why didn't he say meat? Was he vegetarian? Was Disney deliberately supporting vegetarianism/respecting vegetarians? Are there any historical circumstances that I'm not aware of? Or am I just overanalyzing this matter?
Answer: Eggs are full of protein. Eating a lot of eggs is an excellent way to bulk up and build muscle mass.
Eggs are not good for you if you eat too many of them.
To quote Stephen Fry: "Well of course too much is bad for you, that's what "too much" means. If you had too much water it would be bad for you, wouldn't it? "Too much" precisely means that quantity which is excessive, that's what it means. Could you ever say "too much water is good for you"? I mean if it's too much it's too much. Too much of anything is too much. Obviously." That aside, while it used to be believed that the cholesterol content of eggs was a health risk, more recent studies have shown that dietary cholesterol doesn't affect blood cholesterol levels for most people. As such there's no real maximum limit on egg consumption beyond the aforementioned "too much of anything is too much".
I don't think Gaston cares much about his cholesterol.
They didn't even know the word.
Answer: While I was waiting for this question to be accepted, I found the answer to one of my questions myself. Gaston is indeed not vegetarian, considering he mentions his hunting trophies during the aforementioned song and earlier in the movie, he tells Belle to imagine him roasting his kill on the fire place.
15th Nov 2002
Blade II (2002)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Nyssa and Reinhardt are fighting the Reapers after Blade has detonated the UV bomb; Nyssa takes a deep breath before diving under the water, yet vampires don't breathe. (01:18:29)
Correction: The Blade movies deal with vampires being a scientific phenomena, not mythical. It is never stipulated that vampires don't breath in the Blade movies.
Vampires as depicted in the film are immortal and it is stated that only a few specific things (sunlight, silver garlic) can kill them. It could be argued that, being immortal, they therefore do not "need" to breathe. That said, you could also argue that since they feel pain (albeit it with a very high pain tolerance outside of the above things), it could be very uncomfortable for them to be held underwater and not be able to breath, so they create the same habit as regular humans (taking a breath before diving).
Then again, on the other hand, Nyssa like many vampires was born as one and should never have developed human traits.
Since the movie never states that vampires don't breathe at all, this really can not be considered a mistake.
It's also quite possible that pureblood vampires learn to breathe in order to attempt to seem human in order to fit in.
Correction: It sounded more like a gasp-out of shock-rather than her holding her breath; just look at Dylan in Charlie's Angels when she got shot. Plus, it could be possible that her mouth is closed when she goes underwater.
15th Nov 2002
Blade II (2002)
Corrected entry: During the sewer scene, Whistler says "well some of us can't see in the dark, nipplehead". Fair enough, humans can't see in the dark, vampires can. So why do they have the lights on the guns? As a UV weapon, constantly on but filtered for quick access? That's just about OK. But that doesn't explain why Nyssa uses a flashlight in the house of pain as she searches the rooms/corridor/loft. (00:42:01)
Correction: There wasn't a scene I saw of Nyssa using the light, her guns were holstered when walking around the house of pain. There is a scene when Verlaine is searching with the light on. When she and Lighthammer first enter together, you see the filter on and then the next time we see her, the filter is off. But this makes perfect sense in the movie, she kept the light on, but filtered when walking through a room full of "friendly" vampires. When they were out of the way, she removed the filter to be ready to use the UV light as a weapon.
You can see her walking up a ladder and turning on a light to check the room.
Turning on the lights and using a flashlight are 2 different things.
26th Oct 2019
The Terminator (1984)
Question: Why would a gun store have ammo on display? Would it make more sense to have it behind the counter or a hidden place so customers can't take some when the clerk's not looking?
Answer: Things that are sold are on dispay or people wouldn't know you got it for sale now would they? The clerk is alert for shoplifters, its his risk. No difference from a gas station.
I think the question is referring to why would they have the ammo on the counter and not on a shelf behind the counter or in a display counter? Having live ammunition on the counter is, as you say the clerks risk. But it does seem rather foolish.
I think inexpensive things are common to be put on counters to sell. Like cigarette lighters, candy and lottery tickets. Bullets seem a bit dubious as this scene shows someone can load their gun on the spot, but I don't think in reality anyone would do that.
1st Feb 2020
1917 (2019)
Factual error: The strong current of the river the main character falls into carries him to a considerable waterfall. There is not, nor has there ever been, a river of that kind in the Ecoust front line area, let alone a waterfall. Anyone who has any insight into the geography of the region will tell you it is flat as can be. The largest body of water, the Yzer, gently meanders and flows into the Channel, even during really rainy times.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I do not believe that either Ecoust or Croisilles Wood is in Flanders. Both are behind the old German lines at the Somme. That said, there are no bodies of water in that area.
Ecoust and Croissilles are in department Pas-De-Calais in the French Flanders, together with the Belgian flanders they are called Flanders Fields. It is indeed a flat area.
Also, the message in ink delivered is legible, despite having been submerged in water. And don't get me started about the attack from ridiculous trenches and not a barbed wire in sight.
It's not. Even French Flanders is further north. But, even though there are some high points in the area, like Vimy Ridge that rises to about 500 feet above the surrounding plains, the slopes are quite gentle. And, as you say, wouldn't allow for the kind of drop seen in the movie.
There is a watercourse that goes through Croisilles... But it's basically a ditch.
27th Jan 2020
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: If the clones believe Dooku is their leader, why are they against the droids, who are his allies?
Answer: The pilots didn't refuse to shoot down Dooku - they explain they have run out of rockets and they can't. The clone troopers have no idea that Dooku originally ordered for them to be made, only the Jedi council at that time know, which is explained earlier in the film.
Answer: The clones do not believe Dooku to be their leader. Dooku is the leader of the Separatists.
But they believe he was one of the people who was helping with ordering them (which he was) and refused to shoot him down when Anakin asked.
No, they believe Sifo Dyas was the Jedi who ordered their creation. They do not refuse to shoot down Dooku, they tried and failed.
They believe it was both. They used "we're out of rockets" as an excuse to not kill him as they knew he was one of their leaders. Some of the corrections even state it, and one of the answers does as well.
The Jedi and the Chancellor are their leaders, not Dooku. Dooku is the enemy. Dooku's plan was to gather the largest droid army in the galaxy to counter the republic so that the clone army would be deployed. For Palpatine the seperatists were only a distraction for the Jedi and an excuse to deploy the clones. The clones obeyed the Jedi and Republic until order 66. Dooku was led to believe he would become one of the leaders eventually, if he knew about order 66, but Palpatine had other plans.
So are you saying the people who were saying that in the corrections and questions are wrong?
There's one correction I saw that says that, and yes, I believe that correction to be incorrect. There is nothing in the film to suggest that the clones were aware (either consciously or otherwise) that Dooku played any part in their creation and chose not to kill him. If that was the case and George Lucas wanted the audience to be aware, it would have been less subtle and more obvious. It's not even supposed to be obvious that Dooku and Darth Tyranus are the same person until the end of the movie but that reveal was ruined by pre-release marketing and merchandise.
But you can see the rockets in the gunship when the clone pilot refuses to fire them at Dooku.
Plus, they could've also used lasers or etc. instead.
Plus, why wouldn't Dooku and Sidious have had this feature installed anyway if they knew they would've been against him otherwise?
Sidious already was the leader of the clone troops, as Chancellor of the republic. All he had to do was wait for the war to spread the Jedi out over the galaxy so they will be more vulnerable and then execute order 66 to take them out. Dooku or Grievous were never a part of that plan. This is proven by Sidious ordering Vader to go to the Mustafar system and kill the rest of the separatist leaders. If Grievous was still alive he would have been eliminated too. Sidious' new apprentice Vader had already killed Dooku by then anyway.
That's not exactly the point though.
The point the clones did not refuse to fire on Dooku. Dooku is not protected against them. Not by Palpatine, not by himself as Tyrannus.
The programming of the clone troopers has been explored extensively in additional canon materials outside of the films. There has never been any mention of specific programming put in place to keep the clones from killing Dooku and Sidious. The ship still having rockets after the clone says they are out is more likely to be a simple continuity error rather than a subtle hint (and if this theory is to be believed, the ONLY hint at all in any Star Wars media) that the clones were programmed to not kill Dooku.
There's also the hint that he finished up the job with ordering them.
We can go on and on for pages but the fact of the matter is the clones were not what you expected them to be. Dooku never had any idea he would be in danger of being captured or killed by the clones as he was supposed to be coordinating the war on the background like Sidious.
29th May 2009
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: Doesn't anybody think that when the Star Wars movies were released, that the name of the enemy, Darth Vader, would get George McFly a little suspicious? After all, he had to have remembered the name of the spirit that "came down to him from planet Vulcan" since it is on the cover of his book at the end.
Answer: Suspicious of what? He never finds out Doc Brown has a time machine or that Marty affected his past. It might make him believe in some sort of "The truth is hiding in plain sight" conspiracy theory. Oh and BTW, he'd see Star Trek in 1966 (with the Vulcan reference) before he sees Star Wars.
Marty says that he is "Darth Vader from the planet Vulcan", and unless George doesn't remember "meeting him", he might think back to it and be like "wait a minute..." Regardless of when Star Trek and Star Wars would come out, a nerd like him would be able to put two-and-two together and see that they don't add up, unless he thinks that it's just a coincidence.
Answer: I think it was mostly as a shock to him waking up like that with loud noises right in his ear. Disoriented and confused and already being kind of a jittery and craven person he just did what he was told. Doesn't matter at that point how unalien the encounter actually was. I mean the music was guitars, Vulcan is a common word, the "alien" spoke plain english and i'll bet people from the 50's have seen an environmental suit before (basically a diving suit with a gasmask).
Answer: In a special "front page wrap" of USA Today for October 22, 2015, written by Michael Klastorin. The name of the alien is "Garth D'Vade." Obviously done as a joke, it does show that George may have not remembered the name and didn't associate it with Darth Vader, so there's nothing for him to be suspicious about. It's also possible he believes Darth Vader to be real and thinks Vader must have visited George Lucas.
Answer: Vulcan had long been used as the name of fictitious planets (when 19th century astronomers thought they'd discovered a planet closer to the sun than Mercury, they were going to name it 'Vulcan'). As for Vader, George wouldn't have heard the name again until more than 20 years after his 'dream, ' and either chalked it up to coincidence or misremembering what he heard.
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.
Correction: Spoiler alert: This is a bit confusing. Yes, there are seven Horcruxes, but Voldemort only meant to create six: Tom Riddle's diary, the Peverell ring, Slytherin's locket, Hufflepuff's cup, Ravenclaw's diadem (tiara), and Voldemort's snake, Nagini. Voldemort always intended to have seven soul pieces (seven being the most magical number), the six Horcruxes mentioned above, and the one remaining in his body. When Voldemort cast the killing curse at baby Harry, a piece of Voldemort's soul was unintentionally sheared off and embedded into Harry (possibly in his scar), and leaving him with certain abilities, such as speaking Parseltongue. The curse then rebounded, destroying Voldemort's body. Technically, Harry is the seventh (and accidental) Horcrux, though only Dumbledore and Snape realized this, and Harry will learn this later when he views Snape's memory in the penseive. From everyone else's perspective (including Voldemort), there are only six Horcruxes, three have been destroyed (diary, ring, and locket), and three more (cup, diadem, and Nagini) must be found. In total, there are eight soul pieces. If the soul shard within Harry is not destroyed, then Voldemort cannot be killed.
raywest ★
However, in The half blood Prince, Tom Riddle asks Slughorn, could someone split their souls 7 times, meaning he was planning on making 7 Horcruxes all along, not 6.
No, he said "can you split your soul only once? For instance into 7?", the memory is not fully whole I'd say but Slughorn does confirm it, he was considering to split it into 7 pieces, not 7 times.
lionhead
Exactly as you said, Tom Riddle told about parting the soul into seven pieces, not making 7 Horcruxes! That being said, Voldermort split his soul into 7 pieces, one inside his own and the rests (6) into Horcruxes, which implies having 3 other Horcruxes left to be destroyed (Cup, Diadem, Nagini).