Question: In the last shot of the knight waving goodbye to the Joneses, is it just me or has the actor been swapped out with a dummy?
lionhead
9th Aug 2020
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
21st Jun 2017
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: I know this is an opinionated question. Can someone give me the top 10 most powerful characters in Star Wars?
Chosen answer: It really is impossible to give a completely accurate list about this, as there are many meanings to the word "power", and no measuring unit for it.Anyways, these are just my opinions.Here's my attempt: 1. DARTH SIDIOUS/PALPATINE - He was able to use "force stealth" on the Jedi. Plus, he is the Dark Lord of the Sith. He was able to kill his master (Darth Plagueis) in his sleep. 2. YODA - The Grand Master of the Jedi Order. He can control the force lightning of Sidious and Tyranus. It was said that only Mace Windu, Count Dooku and Palpatine were able to fight with him on equal terms. 3. DARTH VADER - He is an extremely powerful in the force by lifting objects without using his hands, able to defeat Jedi Master Obi Wan Kenobi. 4. DARTH TYRANUS/COUNT DOOKU - A menacing Sith Lord and a rogue Jedi. Though old already, he was able to defeat Obi Wan twice and Anakin once. He could use a force lightning ability which Darth Maul and Darth Vader couldn't do. Sidious, Yoda and Windu are considered his equals.He was the swordsman in the galaxy. 5. MACE WINDU - A higher rank of the Jedi Order. Considered one of the greatest swordsmen ever produced by the Jedi Order. He was a master of all seven forms of lightsaber combat. He began his development of the deadly form of combat known as Vaapad. 6. OBI-WAN KENOBI - A wise and brave Jedi Master. He was the first one who kill a Sith Lord Ever. Aside from Darth Maul, he defeated General Griveous and the Pre Darth Vader version. He was able to appear as a force ghost after his death. 7. DARTH MAUL - Wielded a double bladed lightsaber and he was a skilled Zabrak warrior. Very fast in a lightsaber duel. He even resurrects in the Clone Wars Series. 8. LUKE SKYWALKER -The greatest Jedi of all time. He is able to redeem his father to the light, which Obi-wan couldn't do. 9. QUI-GON JINN - A maverick and wise Jedi master. He had used the Force to help and protect Anakin all the way. 10. ANAKIN SKYWALKER - The Chosen One and he was prophesied to destroy the Sith, which he did in the end. *HONORABLE MENTION* - GENERAL GRIEVOUS - though not knowing the ways of the force, he is a skilled lightsaber combatant. With four arms with lightsabers, he could block himself from blasters.
This needs an update. Merge Anakin with Vader since they're one and the same and add in Kylo Ren and Rey. New Order: 1. Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious 2. Yoda 3. Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker 4. Kylo Ren/Ben Solo 5. Rey "Skywalker" 6. Count Dooku/Darth Tyranus 7. Mace Windu 8. Obi-Wan Kenobi 9. Darth Maul 10. Luke Skywalker Honorable Mentions - Leia Organa, Qui-Gon Jinn, General Grievous.
Sidious isn't the most powerful force user. Luke Skywalker, Mace Windu and Yoda overpowered him. Obi-Wan could probably beat him too. Sidious' powers lay in his secrecy and intrigue. Only that way he survived. Not his force use.
3rd Aug 2020
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Question: How come Malcolm could realise he was dead, but none of the other ghosts could?
Answer: Ghosts can't move on until they've completed some unfinished business. Malcolm felt guilty for not helping the kid who shot him. By helping Cole control his powers, he was finally at peace and realised the true state of things.
To add: the little girl Cole helped uncover her murder definitely knew she was dead.
Why do you say she knew? I didn't see any evidence. Cole says ghosts don't know they're dead. The girl wasn't after revenge, but to protect her younger sister, who the mother had started poisoning.
She is one of the few ghosts aware that she can use Cole to help her out. Leading him to the evidence of her murder shows to me she knew she was too late for herself. At the end of the movie it is even revealed that these ghosts probably unconsciously approach Cole for help, so they can move on. They can't do that unless they are aware, or if Cole makes them aware of it. For Malcolm it was even necessary for him to know he was dead before he could say his goodbye. Cole just needs to tell them.
Answer: On top of it, Malcolm only realised he was dead when we saw his wedding ring drop from his wife's hand (he would have had it on him except if he were gone) and he saw her cold breath; these two things together helped him put all the pieces together (that we are shown in the movie) to show that she was grieving and mourning from his death and not that they were growing apart because he was wrapped up in a case (or to put it differently, he was so wrapped up in Cole that he did not notice that he hadn't had a conversation with his wife or even another human being for goodness knows how long - dead people see what they want to see).
Answer: Malcolm didn't realise he was dead until much later in the movie. By then he had a strong relationship with Cole, and being a psychiatrist, wanted to help him understand and cope with his ability and no longer fear it. Being a psychiatrist helped Malcolm analyse his own situation and work out that he had died. Once Cole was comfortable with his ability, Malcolm was able to move on. Also, as Cole noted, ghosts only saw what they wanted to see. Some were unable to come to terms with their deaths and therefore remained among the living.
1st May 2019
Shazam! (2019)
Corrected entry: At the carnival Shazam says the magic word to become Billy among several kids and people. The lighting hits him but the people around are not affected by the blast like the monsters were.
Correction: The lightning only affected the monster because it was directly on top of him. The bystanders weren't.
27th Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
Factual error: It is established that Penny Fleck adopted Arthur and that he's been abused. In her file, when Arthur reads it, you can see that she was admitted the first time to the psychiatric hospital at 15 years of age, had multiple episodes with drug abuse, and the file mentions she is 25 and single on the date of the report, 11-2-1952. A single parent already had rather slim chances to adopt in the 50s, but a known mental patient and drug abuser, not a chance. (01:13:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She could have bribed her way into adopting a child. Someone who is desperate for attention could find ways to get what they want.
Suggested correction: It is not firmly established that Penny actually adopted Arthur - in fact, it's strongly hinted at that Thomas Wayne forced her into signing adoption papers in order to cover up Arthur's true parentage.
The established, as in recognized, backed up by documents, 'official' version the main character finds out and acts by, is the one contained in the report, newspaper clippings and flashback; son abused by the boyfriend of an adopted mother. Such story is impossible the way it is presented the moment we see details in a document that overblows it painting this 'adoptive' mother as single and with a history of drug abuse since 15 years old. Penny is not eligible to be an adoptive parent, and yet nobody seemed to have raised an eyebrow about that. If you want to assume that rather than being a mistake with overzealous details in a prop (check out of the original script of the movie, which has none of this ambiguity) whoever arranged the fake adoption documents kinda forgot to also make quietly disappear the mental and medical record invalidating their own fabrication, sure, do that! It's not exactly a small oversight - and really one would wonder why Wayne kept his bastard son with her at all.
Arthur is not Thomas Wayne's son. That was all in Penny's head.
8th Jun 2020
Alien (1979)
Question: One thing that bugged me from a recent rewatch. When Brett comes across the Alien skin that it has recently shed, it in no way resembles what the creature looks like now, and is completely disproportionate with its size a few minutes later when it kills him. Now I know that its methods of 'growing' we are lead to believe are different to those of Earth creatures in that they are more accelerated etc...but if it is following a similar pattern to Earth animals that shed their skin shouldn't it have shed at least ANOTHER skin or maybe two to achieve its near-adult human size? And also why in 'Aliens' were no shed skins in abundance dotted around the place when it is part of the Aliens' natural life-cycle? They don't strike me as the kind of creature that would worry about leaving their shed skin around to cover up their presence?
Answer: The skin Brett finds is presumably the first skin the creature shed based on its size. There might be other skins that were shed all over the place but we never see every inch of the ship. The alien in this film primarily uses the air ducts to move around, but the film only shows the air ducts in one brief scene. There could be other skins somewhere in those ducts we never see. The same is true in Aliens. We never see every inch of the floors of the colony, they could be anywhere. The floor of the hive does have a considerable amount of debris, some of this debris could conceivably be shed skins.
That's a much more logical answer, thank you.
Answer: They shed their skin once, probably some kind of protective fleece around its immature body it disposes of, not actual skin like with a snake. These are smart creatures, yes they would hide their shed skin.
If that's the case why did the first Alien shed skin get found? If as you say they are 'smart' enough to hide their shed skin why was this one left laying around?
Because in later movies the aliens have a lot more space to shed their skins where it can't be found. Maybe they don't actually hide it, but it's logical they hide themselves as their skin sheds because they are vulnerable. The alien in the first movie simply couldn't find anywhere to hide.
23rd Nov 2005
Serenity (2005)
Question: Why is River bare-foot so often, especially on a ship that has a lot of metal flooring?
Answer: She has several mental disorders, presumably she finds shoes confining or uncomfortable. It's notable that when she does have footwear it's almost always heavy calf high boots, instead of slippers or more comfortable shoes.
To add; She likes to dance, and being barefoot it's easier to move around.
Something I always wondered is when she goes on the heist barefoot at the beginning of the film, none of the other characters seem to notice or care that she's in bare feet. Even her brother, Simon, didn't try to get her to wear shoes.
Answer: The reason is that Summer Glau had severe tendinitis and arthritis in her feet and wearing shoes was painful for her.
I actually got to ask Summer this at Galaxy Con. She said that being barefoot helped her focus on becoming her character.
8th Dec 2017
Constantine (2005)
Question: Even though Isabel committed suicide, shouldn't she have gone to heaven? She willfully sacrificed herself to insure that Mammon couldn't cross on to earth so in a way, she was saving billions of people, so that should have guaranteed her entry into heaven.
Answer: Sin for a good reason is still sin, and as Gabriel says earlier, you can't buy your way into Heaven. Real Catholic dogma, however, doesn't hold the mentally ill as condemned for committing suicide.
Except Isabel wasn't mentally ill. She saw angels and demons just like Constantine did. It was her parents who believed she was mentally ill.
While suicide is a mortal sin, it's shown later (as in major plot point) that sacrificing yourself to save the world is a redeeming act.
Yes, but Constantine also said "My parents were normal. They did what most parents would do. They made it worse. You think you're crazy long enough, you find a way out" which could relate to Isabel losing her sanity in a way as well because of her family and how they saw her. The whole Isabel's sacrifice is added by the novelization but the movie is ambiguous about the suicide.
Except Isabel wasn't mentally ill. She saw half breeds just like John did.
Sacrificing yourself for others isn't a sin.
Answer: If a soldier jumps on a grenade and dies to save his fellow soldiers, it's considered giving one's life for others. To my understanding, that isn't considered a "sin." If it was a mental health issue, a just God would give her a pass. If she was doing it to thwart Mammon's plans, again she was sacrificing herself. If she did it to get Constantine involved to help stop Mammon, again is was self sacrifice. (Notice how she says "Constantine" just before jumping when her sister views the video?). As a plot device, I understand it, but from a theological standpoint it is weak.
Answer: It is shown in the movie that it was Balthazar who whispered into her ear, gave her suggestions. Eventually she committed suicide to escape that, to escape her torment. She certainly didn't sacrifice herself to keep Mammon out because Mammon needed twin psychics, one in hell and one on Earth to do it, which Balthazar achieved for him.
The film doesn't give information about the need of having one twin in hell and the other on earth to complete Mammon's plan; the movie states Mammon needs a powerful psychic and God's help. It isn't shown either that Balthazar was the one whispering to Isabel's ear considering she was apparently hearing Hellspeak, but no individual besides her appeared on the death scene; therefore, it was left ambiguous. Otherwise, provide evidence of the statement above.
When John and Angela are walking back to the elevator after taking care of Balthasar they specifically mention Mammon needed twin psychics. The only reason would be for their connection. One is in hell, the other on Earth. Through their connection Mammon is able to posses Angela. As for the second thing. When Isabel commits suicide you both hear Balthasar whisper to her and she has the mark on her wrist, like Hennessy had on his hand palm, the sign of Mammon. They wanted her in Hell.
The dialogue, when they are walking towards the elevator, is "Constantine: Beeman said Mammon needed divine assistance to cross over. How's the blood of God's only son? Ángela: The stains on the spear. Constantine: Yeah. Ángela: So he gets the spear. He still has to locate a powerful psychic. Constantine: Not really. Ángela: Twins." Angela says "twins" after hearing Constantine say "Not really." (while looking at her) which made Angela realise that she was Isabel's replacement as a powerful psychic since they had the same gift, but the former's was dormant up until that moment. It's not because the plan needed one in hell and the other on earth. That's never stated as far as we know from the information provided by the film. As for Balthazar, it's never stated it was him who whispered to Isabel. That's an assumption based on hearing the voice alone. Also, the mark appeared on the guy's hand at beginning of the film after he found the spear and Balthazar was probably not there.
It's not an assumption when it's his voice. It doesn't all have to be "stated." And the whole twin part is just a coincidence? Are you saying Gabriel and Balthasar found twin psychics so they have a backup if one of them dies? That's ridiculous. They needed twin psychics specifically, and they make one of them commit suicide. That's not just a random thing, it's what needed to be done. And it's Mammon's sign, not Balthasar's.
It's an assumption because there is insufficient evidence to prove it, and there were other voices in the film to assume it was specifically Balthazar's given that Angela heard a similar voice calling her name when she was in hell and Mammon appeared, which could indicate that maybe it was Mammon who whispered to Isabel too but still not clear though. It's more speculation. Yes, not everything has to be stated since some things are implicitly given although it also depends because it can become ambiguous if it lack details which is open to interpretation, but the movie dismisses any possibility of your theory of "one in hell and the other on earth" by stating what the "villain" needed and with that the argument doesn't work. Otherwise, it would be a plot hole for creating an inconsistency with the rules established before. Angela just realised she was the powerful psychic since they had the same gift, so Mammon didn't have to locate another one since it was there in the other twin.
There is no inconsistency with the rules, there is help from god, there is a psychic. All that fits, the Hell Bible just wasn't specific enough, they didn't know the full plan. There is something significant about them being twins. Both because Isabel was killed and Angela and Constantine realise that's what Mammon was looking for.
Now, all that is just speculation, and misinterpretation of what has been explained in the reply above yours. Not continuing the discussion.
Answer: The film itself can't be blamed for that really because it was left ambiguous; the novelization added the part of Isabel's sacrifice to the story. If we go by what the film gave us then Isabel might have been an unstable person considering even Angela didn't back her up about what they could see which could've led her to believe that maybe she was indeed crazy, and as Constantine said "You think you're crazy long enough, you find a way out." Perhaps she just wanted to end everything that was happening to her. There isn't enough information in the movie to confirm or deny it.
21st Jul 2020
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: In the first half of the movie, the problem that needs to be solved is where the known route starts. Indy finds out when he finds the second, complete shield in Venice and deciphers it later. When exactly do the Nazis find out? He has told Marcus Brody, but not Elsa, because he does not fully trust her. The Nazis find the diary, but not the rubbing. They don't "extract" the information from the Joneses when they are captured in Austria, at which time Indy confidently states that Marcus has a two day head start (unless the Nazis know something that Indy doesn't). But they are already waiting for him in Iskenderun when he arrives. (No indication is ever given that Marcus is being followed in Venice; at any rate, no-one pays much attention to him, because all eyes are on Indy.) When and how do the Nazis discover where to go?
Answer: There is one theory to answer my own question. It could be that the room where Jones Sr. Is kept is "wired" (seen and mentioned), and Indy is saying out loud that the mystery city is in fact Alexandretta. Only, he KNOWS that it's wired. So that would be spectacularly stupid after all the safety precautions he took.
Answer: They don't know Alexandretta is the city when they set out to capture Brody; he travels to Iskenderun (modern Alexandretta) himself, and the Nazis capture him there. They probably sent his description, and orders to capture him, to all their agents in Hatay (whose leader is sympathetic); as we see, Brody is very easy to spot, and naïve enough to be captured with relative ease (he also contacts Sallah in advance of going there, leaving a further trail). At that point, it's not difficult for them to deduce that the starting point on the map is the city that Brody has traveled to.
No, I'm sorry, but that second reply makes very little sense. Sure we can speculate that his phone call to Sallah was tapped. But speculation is not good enough. And there's no indication at all that Brody was being followed. In fact he's all but ignored. The idea that at every train station there would be nazi agents waiting is a bit impractical. Hatay is perhaps small enough to do that, but then we're just renaming the problem: how did the nazis know to go there, and not Syria, or Palestine, or Istanbul, or any other place once visited by crusaders? They can't watch out for every scholarly type in every train station in the entire Middle East.
Answer: There are several possibilities. Indy started trusting Elsa after their escape in Venice when he revealed the grail diary to her. He sent Marcus off to Iskenderun after, while he and Elsa rescued his father in the castle. It's possible Elsa asked him before they left Venice or on the way to the castle where Marcus was going and Indy revealed it. She could have slipped away when they stopped somewhere and called her superiors. The other possibility is Indy or Marcus called Donovan and let him know about their progress. Marcus could have told Donovan where he was headed.
Most of that is conjecture or speculation, though. I simply mean that we don't see or hear that happening. I've thought over my original question, and the only provable point is some extreme stupidity on the part of Indiana Jones himself. If he hadn't mentioned the town while he was in his dad's room (that he KNEW was 'bugged'), they wouldn't have known.
Answer: They capture Max Brody with the map shortly after they capture the Jones'. They learned through him.
And WHERE do they capture him...? Right. So that's not it.
When wandering around Egypt alone with the map, Brody meets up with Sallah who tries to prevent him from being captured. He fails by accidentally leading him into a nazi controlled truck that takes him away and into the hands of Donovan. They have the map then.
Brody is not "wondering around Egypt." We explicitly hear Indy instruct Salah and him to meet in Iskenderun before he left for Austria and that is where Brody descends from the train station. Or am I to believe, again, that the nazis have camouflaged truck traps in every town in the entire Middle East, just in case? No, they intercept Brody because they know where he's going to be. (Iskenderun, by the way, is nowhere near Egypt, it's not even on the same continent. I suggest you re-watch the relevant bit of the movie first).
27th Aug 2001
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Corrected entry: While Donovan and Indy are looking at the tablet, if you freeze the movie while it shows the tablet, you can clearly see the word "deorum", meaning "of the gods". Not something you would expect a Christian to be carrying around, considering they are monotheistic. (00:17:50)
Correction: Firstly if you have to pause the movie then it's not a mistake but aside from that, some early Christian theology believed that the holy trinity was to be interpreted literally and hence Christianity was not monotheistic.
It's visible without freezing - although the normal viewer wouldn't start reading. It's not coherent Latin to begin with, deorum is basically just one example of that. Borderline. They knew what they wanted it to say, so they could have made a better prop. But if someone is reading a newspaper headline and there's nonsense below, is that a mistake? Not sure.
The tablet simply should not speak of gods, plural, because the Crusaders were monotheistic. The trinity (although a confusing concept) is not referred to as three gods. And other, obscure and far away versions of Christianity have nothing to do with it.
Actually it says "rex deorum nostrum" which means "Our king of the Gods." Meaning the one true God, above all other gods. If you read the few words before it left of the cross it fully says "The army of the king of the Gods.", meaning the templars I think.
I feel that this is putting a positive spin on it. Nostrum by the way should be "noster" for your interpretation to work. I stand by my earlier opinion that they could have made a better prop, one with a "prop-er" Latin text without errors.
I think for a prop it's actually pretty good. Most parts of the text in Latin is almost identical to what Indy is reciting. He just happens to skip the part we are talking about. The tablet is worn down and partial too so the wrong spelling is explained by the missing words or letters, like "nostrum." They took a while to make this thing for the movie.
Oh right. Good, except that the fact that there were plenty of people just a phone call away who could have made a CORRECT Latin text. And I don't want to sound sarcastic or anything, but I didn't know stone inscriptions could develop spelling errors. It hasn't been badly copied by a monk - they are looking at the original - epigraphy is generally very reliable, when it's there, it's there. And IF there were gaps in the text, then we would see the actual gaps. (Also: If you want to connect "exercitum" to "rex" then the latter should become "regis.").
You know what? You may be right. For those few seconds of screen time, I'm OK with it though, personally.
Yes that is what I agree with as well. It's not visible long enough for any normal person to start seeing the errors.
18th Jul 2020
Passengers (2016)
Plot hole: Gus wakes up and doesn't realise initially that he's seriously ill, although he knows he's not right. When Jim woke he was given a full body scan to check his health minutes after waking, so surely Gus must have had the same scan? When all his medical problems would have been identified. So he'd have known he was very ill minutes after waking.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Minutes after waking there was nothing wrong with his body yet, his body started to deteriorate rapidly afterwards.
How do you know nothing was wrong with him minutes after waking up?
Because he got a full body scan like you said and nothing came up. The first sign of symptoms he shows is after they enter the bridge (or command center) and he dismisses it as something common. Before that he shows no sign of any medical problems.
That's the mistake here - he should have had a body scan on wake-up. So did he develop multiple medical issues in the pod because his pod function was affected by the central computer being damaged by the asteroid strike? Which would fit as his pod woke him up early, a built in safety feature perhaps so people don't die in their pods? Maybe his pod wasn't working right for 2 years, so slowly damaging his body? So the wake-up body scan should have detected his multiple issues! He couldn't go from healthy to over 600 disorders in a day.
I'm not sure the pods are sensing anything, they're essentially freezers, but without freezing you. The finger connections are not sensing anything from a person in the pod as there's nothing to sense, as people are dormant. It only senses vital signs when people are woken up. So Gus blaming his pod for his medical issues is inaccurate surely? A movie mistake?
The malfunctioning pod caused his medical issues. It keeps them in cryogenic stasis. We don't know exactly how they work of course but it is more than just sensing. Basically the people inside the pods are kept dead, but the pod manages to halt any deterioration of the cells. Imagine that going wrong and the pod isn't able to keep the cells in check. Just like when exposed to high levels of radiation the cells have been damaged but there won't be any signs immediately. Only after a few hours the cells will start to break down.
He developed several severe medical issues after being woken up too early in a pod that was malfunctioning. This is fictional, future technology and we have no idea how it works, but I think its safe to assume that the pod has to keep the entire body in check during cryosleep, and if the pod malfunctions it could cause all kinds of problems, both directly and later on. If it works on a molecular level than no issue can be detected for quite a while before problems start to show, much like with radiation poisoning when cells suddenly and rapidly start dying whilst hours or even days before you feel fine.
7th May 2020
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: This is actually a question to all of the books and movies, Why did Voldemort wait for the end of the school year to attack Harry Potter? Except, of course, in this movie, where Harry drops out of Hogwarts.
Answer: I agree with the other answer, but it is also a matter of plotting. Rowling has carefully structured each book to cover one school year at Hogwarts, usually starting with the summer break ending and the students preparing to return to school. The ensuing events cover the next nine months, with the story building up to the end-of-the-year climax, just before students part ways to return home for another summer. This formula allows for a continual timeline with only short breaks in-between major events. Otherwise, the story's momentum would slow down and much exposition would be needed to fill in gaps.
So basically, it's plot armor. Besides the main antagonist of the story is Voldemort so therefore he should be in the climax where it deals around him except in the third film/book. This answer makes me think that Voldemort really cares for Harry's education. ;-)
Answer: He didn't plan all these attacks except for the Goblet of Fire one. It took so long for Quirrel to get the stone, it took Voldemort's soul in the diary that long to influence Ginny and take control of her, it required the triwizard tournament finals to attack Harry. All these things just took till the end of the school year to happen.
What about in Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince?
In Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince he was gathering strength, both personally and his army. In Order of the Phoenix the story is more about trying to convince the wizarding world that Voldemort is back and Voldemort trying for as long as possible to not draw attention to himself so it's easier to recruit, get stronger, etc. He is also busy with the prophecy, trying to get to it without exposing himself (thus using Harry to do it), knowing it is the key to his survival. In Half-Blood Prince Voldemort wants Dumbledore dead before he goes further with any other planning. Initially Draco is ordered to do it but he takes almost the entire schoolyear to do it, until he eventually manages to get deatheaters enter the school. It's not planned by the villain, but makes sense to have an entire year at Hogwarts continue each and every time. Until eventually Voldemort starts his coup.
In Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort didn't want to reveal himself as most of the Wizarding world didn't believe he was back. As such he used his Death Eaters to try and take the prophecy from the Department of Mysteries. He only arrived at the Ministry late on as it was an optimal chance to kill Harry, Fudge seeing him wasn't intended. In the Half Blood Prince, Voldemort was afraid of fighting Dumbledore and the only way he could duel him personally would be to attack Hogwarts which would be unwise. Again, he used his Death Eaters or in this case Draco Malfoy to try and assassinate Dumbledore.
Voldemort wasn't afraid to fight Dumbldore in Half-Blood Prince, he was trying to kill Dumbledore whilst Dumbledore was protected by Hogwarts, he couldn't get to him. So he had Draco do it.
He assigned Draco to do it as a consequence of what his father failed to retrieve, which is the prophecy.
8th Jun 2020
Independence Day (1996)
Factual error: Aliens are using TV satellites for their secret attack signal, making the TV picture quality poor. David shows the president how they do it by bypassing the curvature of the earth. However TV satellites don't work that way. They are "hanging" pretty much above their broadcasting area totally reflecting and spreading the signal back straight downward to earth. Turning the parabolic mirrors of the satellites to a different elevation would result in no TV signal on earth, not just a degraded one.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Satellites do both. They both send the signals back down to earth but they also send signals to each other in order for the signal to cross the globe. And in those signals the aliens have hidden their own signal, and that distorts all satellite signals, causing TV's to receive a distorted signal.
Very few satellites directly talk to other satellites. Geosynchronous communication satellites don't. The antennas used for transmitting the TV signal are directional, but while directional antennas send most of their energy in one (or a few) direction, they still leak at least some energy to all directions, so it could still theoretically be used as described. The real mistake though is the aliens have advanced technology, so could easily have deployed a couple satellites of their own to perform this function, so why the need to use ones from Earth? Worst case just send a couple small ships up to act as relays.
It probably saves them time to use the satellites already in orbit. They are on a tight schedule and don't want to waste time and resources deploying their own satellites. Plus it's a small possibility for them that humans can take out their satellites, so hiding it in their own seems perfect.
They could be using the human satellites to disrupt communications or make communicating across the globe difficult to hinder any possible pre-emptive strike by Earth's armies acting in unison while the harvesters position themselves for the first wave of attack.
9th Jul 2020
Predator (1987)
Question: When Dillon and Dutch see each other again in the opening scene, Dillion asks Dutch why he passed on Libya, something doesn't look right. Is almost looks to me like he is saying something different?
8th Aug 2019
Chernobyl (2019)
Corrected entry: Dyatlov puts pressure on his subordinate, threatening to fire him. In the USSR it would be very hard for him to do so, because of strong labor unions. So it's unlikely that fear of being fired would force the worker to violate safety precautions.
Correction: Dyatlov didn't fire anybody but he repeatedly threatened Nikolai Fomin and Viktor Bryukhanov with dismissal if they didn't do what he told them to do. It may have been an empty threat but it is a matter of history.
9th Jun 2014
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Question: Why did Harry and Ron get into so much trouble for using the flying car in "Chamber of Secrets", but in this movie/book, the Order of the Phoenix members openly fly on broomsticks?
Answer: Ron and Harry, who were under-aged, took the car without permission, flew it haphazardly, nearly got Harry killed, were seen by Muggles and it was reported in the Muggle news. They also crashed the car into the Whomping Willow, causing much damage and could have injured others at Hogwarts. Their actions also got Mr. Weasley into trouble with the Ministry of Magic, because Mr. Weasley bewitched a muggle object which is illegal by wizards' law. When the Order of the Phoenix is moving Harry to a safe house, it was carefully planned and precautions were taken to avoid being seen, much like how the Knight Bus is always undetectable to Muggles.
They flew next to a ferry which would also be a bad idea.
Even though it's illegal to bewitch a muggle object, several wizards have enchanted cars. The ministry of magic owns several enchanted cars. Think about the Knight bus, not illegal. So Mr. Weasley was not in trouble for that.
5th Dec 2014
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Question: Why didn't the Dursleys just dump Harry at an orphanage, or refuse to take him? Why did they care about doing what Dumbledore asked?
Answer: Dumbledore never would have allowed it. The charm that protected Harry was only effective as long as Harry lived with his blood relatives, that being his aunt. Also, though Aunt Petunia would be too afraid of the consequences if she ever tried to abandon Harry, she was not evil. There was a line she would never cross that would put her sister's child in danger. She knew his living in her household protected his life.
Does she care though? Because her and Vernon often tell him that he is punished with no meals for a long time and lock him in a cupboard.
They cared enough for his life, not his well-being.
They probably felt obligated, not enthusiastic. Consider how Severus Snape felt about secretly protecting Harry over the years. He was not happy that Lily fell in love with James and they produced Harry, but he felt obligated to protect Harry anyway, in honor of Lily.
Answer: According to the books, once they agreed to take him in, the protective became active. So it seems like they had the choice not to take him in.
Question: In the prologue to the movie, Galadriel states that the ring has been forgotten, but Galadriel herself was around during the historic war against Sauron, and Elrond encouraged Isildur to throw it into the lava in Mount Doom, and there's even a mural in Rivendell of Isildur cutting the ring from Sauron's hand, so obviously the ring has not been forgotten. What gives? It can't be that "forgotten" means "believed now only to be a myth" ("History became legend; legend became myth") because Elrond and Galadriel (and countless other elves) would know that the ring wasn't a myth because they were a part of the earlier events. Nor can it be that Galadriel is referring to general history when she says, "For none now live who remember it," because she is not extemporizing on the nature of history, she is specifically referring to the ring: "For two and a half thousand years the ring passed out of all knowledge." Not just men's knowledge, or dwarves' knowledge, but all knowledge. Similarly, Gandalf has been in Middle-Earth for "300 lives of men", but Gandalf has to look up the story of the ring in historical papers; how did such an epic and giant war escape his notice?
Answer: Elves usually count themselves out of affairs like this, preferring to keep to themselves. It was a man who took the ring, so it is a man's tale until the elves choose to involve themselves again. And Gandalf is well aware of the war that saw the supposed defeat of Sauron. He's researching the historical documents looking for any clues, any seemingly irrelevant yet ultimately useful minutia, he may not yet be aware of.
Your answer doesn't make any sense. She says has fallen out of all knowledge. Whether or not elves prefer to keep to themselves doesn't change that they have knowledge of the ring.
The ring was deemed lost for good, eventually those that were there forgot it existed (or could still exist) untill the dark shadow over Mirkwood and later Mordor jolted their memories.
2nd May 2020
Shazam! (2019)
Question: When the disbelieving assistant puts her hand on the markings that Mark Strong draws on the door, why does she dissolve into ashes?
Chosen answer: Because she is not worthy to open the door (not champion material), or even to touch it. But Silvana is, since he already crossed it as a child.
As you can recall Sivana reached for the eye of sin and the old wizard told him he would never be worthy.
He is a champion candidate. That's good enough to at least enter.
17th Sep 2015
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: If Doc doesn't want to know what's going to happen in his/the future, then why did he tape the letter Marty gave him in 1955, which he tore up, back together instead of throwing it away? Also why did he have it on him at the end to give to Marty, if he had no idea Marty would show up at Lone Pine Mall after coming back to 1985?
Chosen answer: It's not stated directly in the movie, but it's easy to infer that Doc Brown was subject to the one thing that just about all scientists fall victim to... Curiosity. You can guess that after Marty vanished back to the future, Doc became too curious to resist and assembled the paper back together to read it. In turn, this would give him the information he needed to save himself with a bulletproof jacket, and know the important of why Marty would go back in time when it is 85. And he would have kept the note on him because he DID know Marty would come back to that point. After all, he did send him back off 30 years prior, with the intent of going back to that very day. Doc is intelligent, and would have expected things to turn out that way given the unwritten laws of time travel and paradox.
But after this, it poses a new question. Wouldn't he have found a new power source instead so he won't be shot?
No, he is very careful about changing anything in the timeline. So after reading the letter he came up with the bulletproof vest so he could survive without changing anything about the events that led to Marty being sent back to 1955 in exactly the same way. That way he prevented a paradox.
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: It is the real actor and not a robotic dummy. He moves a bit slowly and deliberately, apparently for effect, but it's a real person.
raywest ★
Just to be clear, I'm not referring to when we see the knight raise his hand to wave goodbye to them, but rather right after Indy says "Please Dad," and he and Henry begin to flee the collapsing temple, you can see the knight in the background with his arm raised and he looks rather stiff. You can see it at around 2:22 of this clip: https://youtu.be/PAfZ7V2VyD8.
Phaneron ★
I took a closer look. There is the shot where the knight raises his hand and you can see him moving. It then cuts to Indy and Henry, then a cut back to the knight where it briefly looks like it could be a mannequin, then there is another cut and back to the knight again and this time it's definitely the live actor. So yes, for that brief long shot, I think it could be a dummy. This may have been for the purpose of efficiency in the filming, it being easier to use a stationary prop for doing multiple takes, rather than the live actor just standing there. Sometimes they do what is called "pick up" shots, where, post-production, a part of a scene or close-ups are re-shot or added weeks or months later, and it would just be easier to use mannequin rather than recall the actor.
raywest ★
But he does move, so most likely a real person.
lionhead