Question: More of a book question, but which sub-species of Hobbit are the four ones in the fellowship? I've heard that Sam is of a lesser species than the other three. I've also heard that either Pippin or Merry is a different species; how does that work with them being cousins?
Questions about specific movies, TV shows and more
These are questions relating to specific titles. General questions for movies and TV shows are here. Members get e-mailed when any of their questions are answered.
Question: I am resubmitting my question because the posted answer is incomplete and/or irrelevant. In FOTR, Bilbo says something like "There has always been a Baggins living at Bag End, and there always will be." Presumably he thinks Frodo, and Frodo's descendants, will always live there, but Frodo goes to the Undying Lands, leaving no heirs behind. In the book, Sam and Rosie move into Bag End, but this does not happen in the movie - at the end of ROTK, you can see that the hobbit hole Sam goes home to is not Bag End. My question is, why did the filmmakers change these 2 things? In other words, if Bilbo's line is included to make it important who ends up in Bag End, why not show who does end up there in ROTK? If it is not important who lives there (thus explaining why Sam and Rosie don't appear there), then why have Bilbo make a fuss over it in FOTR? Someone answered that "Bilbo is simply stating the way things have always been", but this is not what I'm asking. I'm not asking "why would Bilbo say this?", I'm asking "why did Peter Jackson think it was important to have this line in the movie?" Why make a scene about who Bilbo thinks will end up in Bag End, and then not show who does end up in Bag End? I want to know what dramatic or story-telling purpose the juxtaposition of these 2 scenes (Bilbo's line and showing that Sam and Rosie do not move into Bag End) serves.
Answer: I think the point is that, at the time he speak the line, Bilbo has NO WAY to know the events that are to come. Clearly, he thinks that the Baggins' will always live at Bag End. How can he possibly know the way things will turn out? Even in the book, at the beginning of the story, Bilbo has no way to know that Sam and Rosie will move into Bag End and that Frodo will not. Also, you might be attaching far too much significance to this one line. We cannot assume that the line was included for the express purpose of "making it important who ends up in Bag End". All that matters is Bilbo is making an assumption that Baggins' will always live there.
Answer: Peter Jackson and the writing team made an effort to put lines of all the books in the movies. Can't remember if this line was actually in the book or if that was some kind of implicit statement. But I think Jackson chose not to place Sam in Bag End because it could be unpopular for the audience (at least some). It gives you no hope that Frodo will be back. It would be like admitting he was dead, and he would never ever come back. On another point of view you might consider that keeps the integrity, honesty and simplicity of Sam's life as gardener, and not as someone who is now part of the upper class. Not sure but I think we also do not know exactly when Sam actually took Bag End in his possession and actually started living there. I would imagine, if I was him, I would keep Bag End in neat condition but prefer to live in my cosy known family house. As his family grew bigger with Rosie, then he would move to Bag End for more space. They had thirteen children and you only see 2.
Question: What do the curls on Navy officer's white wigs signify? Some have one curl on each side, while others have two, and so on. Are they an indication of rank?
Question: What does Lord Beckett mean when he says to tell Davy Jones, "To give no quarter"?
Chosen answer: In this case it implies showing no mercy or clemency, to leave no one one alive and take no prisoners, no offer to retreat for the enemy, the Black Pearl, which Cutler Beckett knows would surely make Jones very happy.
Question: Was Kim wanting to follow a U2 tour a decision made because both the band and Liam Neeson are Irish?
Chosen answer: Bit of a tenous link that to be honest, I just put it down to her and Amanda liking the band and wanted to go on the European tour to see them.
Question: I have a 4 part question. 1. If Batman really represents what's good and true, then why does he allow Harvey keep his clean public image when Batman knows this isn't true? 2. Does Batman realize that this might have adverse effects? 3. Given that Batman has a better than average knowledge of the law, why doesn't he realize that he is essentially becoming an accessory after the fact (he knows that Dent killed several officers), or committing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? 4. Finally does Batman think the people will be upset by the oh-so-shocking concept (note sarcasm) of a politician being involved in a scandal?
Answer: If people only have one hope, you don't take it away from them. A martyr is a powerful symbol - if people believe that Harvey Dent died as a good man fighting against the forces of lawlessness and corruption, then he becomes a rallying point, a battle cry for those looking to carry on the fight in his name. It doesn't matter that it's not true - what matters is that people believe, and continue to believe, in Harvey Dent. If the truth, that Harvey died a deranged killer, came out, then everything that Harvey did will be tainted, morale would plummet and the city would be right back to square one. As for Bruce becoming an accessory after the fact, of course he knows, but do you really think he cares? Likewise representing "what's good and true" - most of what he does as Batman is completely illegal - assault, kidnapping, property damage, illicit surveillance, just in this film alone. But he does it for the good of the city. Same with covering up for Harvey. It's what's right - doesn't matter if it's legal, or even true, it's what needs to be done.
Plus as stated in the film, if Harvey is exposed, all the criminals he put away would be released. It doesn't matter if Harvey was good when he locked them up, him being exposed as a criminal would taint his reputation and the criminals could claim he falsified evidence, etc.
Question: When the dad and his cop friend are heading to 666 Shadowbrook Road, they drive through Dracula's hearse, but in the next scene Dracula gets out of the hearse. So when did Dracula turn into a ghost?
Answer: Being able to turn into mist or dust is a an ability often attributed to vampires in fiction.
Question: Does anyone know what the book is that Inman carries Ada's picture in?
Answer: Its short title is "Bartram's Travels". The complete name of the book is: Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the Extensive Territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws. Containing an Account of the Soil and Natural Productions of Those Regions; Together with Observations on the Manners of the Indians.
Question: In the scene when Batman is kidnapping Lau, how does he vanish when getting shot at in the office?
Answer: Batman was trained as a ninja and can seemingly disappear at will. It isn't known where he goes when he dives behind the glass, just that he vanishes and then reappears behind Lau and the shooters to take them out.
Question: How did the bomb at MCU leave everyone else totally incapacitated, while the Joker was completely unharmed? I know he has remarkable tolerance for pain, but come on! Also, if he was wearing some kind of protective clothing, they would have discovered it. So how did all the cops get knocked out while the Joker just walked away?
Answer: Look where he's standing just before it goes off. The Joker's carefully positioned himself close to a set of heavy filing cabinets, which are between him and the blast, protecting his legs and almost all of his torso. As the bomb goes off, you can see him duck his head down, allowing the blast to pass him by almost completely. He gets to walk away unscathed because the blast never really hits him.
Question: I heard Orlando Bloom was in an episode of this show. Is it true?
Answer: Yes, he appeared in an episode called "Judgement Day", shown in 2000.
Question: When Aramis is reading at the beginning, saying that bit about the storming of the Bastille and of records being found of the prisoner who was only known as "the man in the iron mask", was that actually true - about the prisoner number and/or the iron-masked man part?
Answer: It is partially true. Author Alexander Dumas based his character on records that were recovered about an unknown prisoner whose identity was kept secret by a black cloth that constantly covered his head. The facts gradually changed as a myth grew up around this account, and the cloth mask was eventually said to be iron. This person, who is believed to have been of high rank, was incarcerated in several prisons, including the Bastille. Dumas adapted the legend for his novel and made the unknown man the twin brother of King Louis XIV. However, the man's true identity has never been discovered. The movie has also distorted historical facts about the Bastille. It was originally built as a fortress during The Hundred Years War, and only later was it used as a prison. (It only held about 50 people.) When it was stormed by French peasants in 1789, there were only seven inmates, and it is believed the rioters were actually looking for ammunition rather than attempting to free prisoners.
Question: When Jack first speaks to Isabel, in the book shop, what is Isabel drinking out of? It almost looks like a stainless steel milk jug, instead of the normal cup which is also on the table.
Answer: It was the stainless steel milk jug (creamer). She was nervous when he came to the table. She absent-mindedly put sugar in the cream and then drank from it. Look at her face when she sips it, she realized her error and put the creamer down.
Question: This applies to all 3 films. Wouldn't someone eventually see Spiderman coming out of Peter Parker's apartment and put 2 and 2 together? Doesn't this seem just a bit careless on Peter's part?
Chosen answer: Answered in the comics: Peter's Spider-Sense tells him if someone is looking when he's about to enter/exit the apartment as Spider-Man.
Question: Everything that happens in the bedtime stories and then occurs to Skeeter in real life has a (pretty much) rational explanation (e.g. the rain of gumballs, "Abe Lincoln" actually being a penny), but why on earth do the women in the restaurant jump up and start doing the hokey pokey, apparently against their will?
Answer: The only reason for them to do the hokey pokey is because it's possible. Patrick said that they would do it in the story, and even in the story it's not impossible. Patrick made it happen.
Question: This is admittedly more a matter of opinion than actual mistake, but could anyone offer up a logical explanation for why, out of the numerous ways AUTO could have destroyed the plant (chucking it in the reactor/tossing it down into the garbage compactor area/having the stewards crispy fry it with their lasers in private to name a few), he settled for having GO-4 place it in an escape pod and blast it a short distance from the ship before blowing it up? I'm aware plot convenience and an easy means for it to be recovered is obviously the main reason, but that still doesn't really explain why he would take such a unnecessarily risky course of action, given the waste of the escape pod would no doubt be noticed and rouse suspicions and, as WALL-E and EVE demonstrate, the chance of the plant being intercepted and saved from destruction is increased significantly.
Answer: The autopilot probably had to make sure every single cell of the plant was either destroyed, or eliminated from the ship. The computer concluded that putting the plant physically off the ship was the only certain way to do so. It's also a computer and its creativity may be limited - the garbage is thrown off the ship and thus eliminated, and it is possible it concluded it was the only way the plant could be properly eliminated as well.
Question: At the end they want the public to believe that Batman killed those people because they could see him as a villain since he is dark, etc., but why not say the Joker killed those people? The public would believe that for sure.
Answer: Harvey Dent dies after the Joker is finally in police custody, so the Joker couldn't have killed him. The only other people who could have killed him are Gordon or Batman. Blaming Gordon would be just as bad as saying Dent turned bad, so Batman took the blame. The film ends before anyone is officially blamed, so it's possible that the Joker could be blamed for some of the cops' deaths, but the death of Dent (which is the most symbolic) would still be blamed on Batman.
Question: In FOTR, Bilbo says something like "There has always been a Baggins living at Bag End, and there always will be." Presumably he thinks Frodo, and Frodo's descendants, will always live there, but Frodo goes to the Undying Lands, leaving no heirs behind. In the book, Sam and Rosie move into Bag End, but this does not happen in the movie - at the end of ROTK, you can see that the hobbit hole Sam goes home to is not Bag End. My question is, why did the filmmakers change these 2 things? In other words, if Bilbo's line is supposed to make it important who ends up in Bag End, why not show who does end up there in ROTK? If it is not important who lives there (thus explaining why Sam and Rosie don't appear there), then why have Bilbo make a fuss over it in FOTR? I just don't understand what the point is.
Answer: Bilbo is simply stating the way things have always been. At that point, he has no reason to believe that Frodo and his descendants will not live in Bag End. As to Sam returning to 3 Bagshot Row instead of Bag End, having him go to Bag End would have caused some extra time to be added to the film. The film is long enough, and explaining that Frodo left Bag End to Sam and his family would've added too much unnecessary time.
Question: I can't help noticing that in every scene on Earth the terrain is bathed in brilliant sunlight yet the entire planet is meant to be permanently covered in thick (presumably toxic) clouds. Is this at all possible?
Answer: Earth is meant to be uninhabitable -- not necessarily due to "thick ... clouds". Earth's environment is inhospitable to humans in many ways, including trash and air quality and presumably water quality. No specific mention of "thick clouds."
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: To think of the three divisions of hobbits as separate species is incorrect, they are simply tribal variations, with none being any "lesser" than the others. The three types, the Fallohides, the Harfoots and the Stoors, hailed from different regions, but since all three sub-groups settled in the Shire, the hobbits have intermingled and intermarried over the centuries, making the differences considerably less clear, to the point where they can simply be considered one group, the Shire-Hobbits. Certain Hobbit families, however, do tend to retain a relatively strong blood link to a particular division - the Tooks and the Brandybucks, for example, tend to retain the height and the impetuous nature of the Fallohide hobbits. The Baggins family is of unclear bloodline, but Frodo would also carry a strong strain of Fallohide blood from his mother, Primula Brandybuck. The Gamgee family are likewise of uncertain bloodline, but Sam's relatively stocky build and affinity with the soil and agriculture would suggest Stoor-ish blood.
Tailkinker ★