Question: According to Captain Panaka and Qui-Gon, if the Hutts discover Queen Amidala on Tattooine, it will be just like landing on a planet controlled by the Federation. Why would they care about her? What would they do?
Phaneron
19th May 2023
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
16th May 2023
End of Days (1999)
Question: Why exactly does the devil need to have a child to conquer the world? Why can't he do it himself? He can easily corrupt mankind and lead them to their destruction, which could allow him to take over the world.
Answer: According to the bible the devil has no power on earth, but like God, he wanted to send his son into the world to influence and corrupt them.
25th Apr 2023
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
Question: This film will be a sequel to the first two Deadpool films, which were part of the Fox X-Men franchise, but will instead be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Is this the first time in history that a film is a sequel to another film, but is now part of a new franchise?
Answer: In addition to Bishop's answer, you could theoretically apply this to Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man characters. They both appeared in "Spider-Man: No Way Home," which technically acts as a sequel to "Spider-Man 3," "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" and "Spider-Man: Far From Home" - three distinct movie franchises. (And there are persistent rumors that Maguire and/or Garfield may make future MCU appearances).
To add to that (I ran out of room in my reply), with the creation of the multiverse, now any Sony or Fox franchise or universe can be considered as part of the MCU. So any Fantastic Four or X-Men sequel (although most likely any up coming film will be a reboot) can be part of the MCU.
I get what you're saying, but No Way Home was more of a crossover film that acknowledged characters coexisting in the multiverse, with those characters returning to their respective universes by the end, and Sony would still have control of those characters. Although we won't know for sure until Deadpool 3 comes out, Deadpool is meant to start as a character in a previously established film franchise and then occupy a different one moving forward.
But what film franchise would he be in? If he's in a Deadpool movie, he's in the Deadpool franchise. If they stop making Deadpool films and put him in another film, then he becomes part of another franchise. (Or more likely, just another crossover film).
This is where I would disagree with you about the MCU not being a franchise. I would contend that it is a franchise, and every series of films and TV shows within it are sub-franchises. So the Deadpool series of films would be a franchise unto itself, beginning in the larger Fox X-Men franchise and transitioning over to the MCU.
So what distinguishes one Marvel film from being in the MCU and another Marvel film not to be in it? Marvel Studios has been part of the production of a lot of films not included in the MCU, including the Blade, X-Men, and Deadpool films.
Any film made by Marvel themselves (or co-produced like the Tom Holland Spider-Man films). Marvel didn't begin making their own movies until the first Iron Man. All previous movies based on Marvel characters were made by other studios in association with Marvel, largely because Marvel licensed out their properties to avoid going bankrupt. The MCU itself is recognized as being the highest-grossing film franchise of all time.
Answer: It depends how you want to define a franchise. Are you talking production companies involved or the distribution company? And are you considering reboots? The reason Deadpool 3 would be "set" in the MCU is because Disney bought Fox and the filming rights returned to Marvel Studios, along with the rights to X-Men and Fantastic Four. When Sony rebooted Spider-Man with Tom Holland, Sony shared the rights with Marvel Studios. So Spider-Man was part of the MCU while still being part of the Sony Spider-man franchise. Venom 2's mid-credit scene is meant to make it part of the MCU while still being part of Sony's Spider-Man Universe. That being said, there are a number of cross-over films that put sequels into another franchises. Such as Freddy vs Jason, Godzilla vs Kong, or Frankenstein meets the Wolf-Man.
I'm speaking strictly from a narrative point of view. Say, for instance, they made a new Alien movie, but it was now part of the Avatar franchise moving forward, while still being a sequel to the previous Alien movies, and not intended to be a brief crossover. I know the meta nature of the Deadpool character and movies makes it a different beast, but still.
And this is what's up for debate, but to me, the MCU isn't a franchise. It's made up of the various franchises; Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, etc. where they exist in the same universe. So when crossover films occur, it's two or more franchises now existing in the same universe. Even the Avenger films can be considered crossovers. Which is why people were wonder if Spider-Man was part of the MCU or the Sony universe. Deadpool is still part of the Deadpool franchise, but now part of the MCU.
8th Nov 2007
The Santa Clause 2 (2002)
Question: At the meeting, what did Mother Nature mean when she said "Don't mess with me Santa. I'm pre-el niño." or something like that. What does pre-el niño mean and why did she think Santa was messing with her?
Answer: By "pre-El Niño", she meant what to a mortal woman would be pre-menstrual. El Niño is "an oscillation of the ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific having important consequences for weather around the globe. Among these consequences are increased rainfall across the southern tier of the US and in Peru, which has caused destructive flooding, and drought in the West Pacific, sometimes associated with devastating brush fires in Australia."
So she was saying she's PMSing?
Yep, that's exactly what she's saying.
I'm not sure she means that because she holds up and shows her wedding ring when she says that.
15th Jan 2023
Game of Thrones (2011)
Stupidity: When Trystane is engaging Nymeria in combat, he pivots right in front of Obara, whom he knows is armed with a spear, and leaves his entire backside exposed. Anyone with a modicum of sword training would know not to expose themselves to an armed opponent like that. He ends up immediately being speared through the back of the head because of it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They ask him who he chooses to fight. He chooses Nymeria, believing the others will not interfere. He was wrong.
Two women snuck aboard his ship intending to murder him, and he trusted them to be honest about fighting fair? That just adds to the stupidity.
That's naivety at best, not stupidity. Plus they didn't sneak on board, they announced their intentions.
If two armed people entered your house and told you they were going to murder you, but would give you the opportunity to fight your way out, would you actually believe them as well as immediately turn your back to one of them? Trystane is a prince who undoubtedly had education and combat training. This goes beyond naivety.
You are forgetting he is also only 15 or 16 years old and never left Dorne (what I take from the show). What does he really know? He probably never actually fought anyone in his life.
The women that killed him were previously locked in a cell for trying to kidnap his betrothed, which he knew about. He also knew she died on the journey back to King's Landing under suspicious circumstances, and likely knew it was from poisoning and that they were involved. Based on the show's lore, someone in his position would have had schooling about the world and its people from a maester and combat training from a master-at-arms. He knew full well not to trust these women.
9th Jan 2023
General questions
Are there any notable examples of a TV character being written out/killed off because viewers hated them?
Answer: Roseanne Barr was killed off from the second version of "Roseanne" when she became too controversial.
Answer: Nicolette Sheridan, who portrayed Edie Britt in the TV series Desperate Housewives was considered a diva and didn't get along with the shows creator Marc Cherry. Her character was killed off when she swerved to avoid hitting Orson. Unaware that there was water under the car and that a powerline had snapped, Edie gets out of the car, is electrocuted and killed.
Answer: During the season 4 run of "Moonlighting," Cybil Shepherd was pregnant in real life, so it was written into the show. During her paternity leave, her character, Maddie, was having mixed emotions about the baby and her relationship with David. She goes home to do some soul searching. She's still unsure, when on the train ride back to L.A, she meets a man. Walter Bishop, actor turned director Dennis Dugan, on impulse she marries him. Viewers thought this was the dumbest mistake, since the "Dallas" it was all a dream season. Everyone waited with baited breath on how they were going to fix this. Finally the character, Walter, realised the whole thing was a mistake and got an annulment. He says goodbye to everyone and as he walks out the office door, he turns toward the camera and says, "Are you happy now."
Answer: I would include Jennifer Love Hewitt, who replaced Jeanne Tripplehorn in "Criminal Minds" after season 9. Love Hewitt wasn't well received by viewers. The official reason given for Love Hewitt's departure after one season was that she was pregnant. Despite the show's claim that viewers had "warmed" to her character, she was permanently written out.
Answer: I think the character Seven was written out of "Married with Children" because viewers disliked him so much. He was an example of "Cousin Oliver Syndrome" - an annoying younger child character who is added to a show after a few seasons. He basically disappears. The neighbors mention that he is staying at their house, but eventually, he is never mentioned again.
1st Jan 2023
The Mummy (1999)
Question: Why is it said that Imhotep and his priests were mummified alive? Mummification occurs when someone dies and has most of the organs removed. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he was buried alive?
Answer: It means the process of removing their organs was performed while they were still alive. Certainly at some point they would die during the process from blood loss or having a vital organ removed. And it was just the priests that were mummified alive, Imhotep was subjected to a different punishment.
Their internal organs were not removed or they'd die instantly. In the movie you see them being bandaged up and put in the sarcophaguses whilst still moving and then sealed up so they still had their organs. It is indeed more like being buried alive but then as a mummy.
Indeed, but you can also see the Medjai using sharp tools against some of the priests. The priest on the left side of the screen with his arm writhing has a Medjai placing a sharp object around his face, indicating he might either be cutting out his tongue or removing his brains through his nose. The Medjai in the immediate foreground is (badly) making a slashing motion with his sword towards the priest lying on the table before him.
22nd Aug 2017
Home Alone (1990)
Question: Near the end of the movie, Kevin makes the 911 call because of the bandits. Why couldn't he had just done this instead of bothering to set up all the traps in the first place? Was he possibly trying to see if he couldn't kill them first instead, then call? Either way, the police were coming over with the call.
Answer: If Kevin called 911 sooner and was found to be "home alone" he knows the police would probably put him into Child Protective Services, leaving the house unguarded. His parents could face some legal issues for having left him behind. Since the burglars hadn't actually done anything yet, the police could not have taken any action against them. Also, Kevin's a kid. He was not trying to kill the burglars, but by his reasoning, he thinks it's his duty to protect the family's home.
Answer: Yeah, that would have made a great film, wouldn't it? "Kevin rings the Police, Harry and Marv are prevented from breaking into his house, and everybody lives happily ever after." A surefire winner.
Answer: Kevin was afraid to call the police because he had stolen a toothbrush so now considered himself to be a wanted criminal. This is why Kevin didn't want to show his face to the pizza delivery man (since the same man worked at the drug store) and also why Kevin changed his voice when he finally did call 911.
Yet Kevin is happy to call to the police with his real voice near the end of the second movie and is present when the police arrest the Bandits despite being a wanted criminal for stealing a credit card.
7th Jun 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Deliberate mistake: When Maverick is in the bar texting Iceman, Iceman's sentence-long responses come almost immediately after Maverick sends his messages, without enough time having elapsed for Iceman to have typed them out. Compare this to the later scene at the selectively mute Iceman's house, where he types out various sentences for Maverick to read, and the amount of time it takes him to type them out is more of what one would expect.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Typing on a PC keyboard isn't the same as typing on a smartphone. The former requires proper coordination of both hands. The latter may use AI-assisted predictive suggestions and auto-correct. Microsoft's discontinued SwiftKey could predict all of Iceman's responses.
Predictive text and autocorrect still wouldn't account for Iceman's responses appearing on Maverick's screen almost immediately after Maverick sends his texts to Iceman. It would still take at least a few seconds for that to happen. The reason this is a deliberate mistake because they didn't want to waste screen time showing Iceman's responses appearing in a more realistic time-frame.
Iceman's typing starts at 0:21:51 and ends at 0:21:58. That's more than long enough. Maverick is twice as fast and we see his typing on the screen. He can type a whole sentence between 0:21:58 to 0:22:01. And it seems natural to me.
Maverick texts "The kid's not ready for this mission." Iceman responds "No one is," and roughly 2 seconds later a separate text appears, in which he says "That's why you're here." No amount of predictive text or autocorrect can both type out that sentence that quickly as well as deliver it to the recipient's phone.
First, in the real world, Iceman would be typing even as he hits the Send message. Maverick's phone would stop displaying the "Iceman is typing..." message to do the unfurl animation, but Iceman is still typing. Second, yes, Microsoft's AI-assisted SwiftKey could. Iceman types "That's" and SwiftKey guesses the rest. This degree of intelligent predication is mundane! Microsoft's IntelliCode predicts the C# code you'd want to write.
17th Sep 2022
General questions
I need help with the title of a book my teacher read to my class in 5th grade, circa 1995. The only details I remember were it taking place in either the North or South Pole, and the main character killed a polar bear by shooting it in the head.
Answer: It may or may not help, but polar bears don't live in Antarctica (the South Pole).
Answer: If you aren't recalling the details, the only movie (and book) around this time period that I can think of is "Alaska" (1996), starring Vincent Kartheiser and Thora Birch. But Vincent did not shoot a polar bear - a poacher shot a mother polar bear and the baby followed the kids while they searched for their father who had wrecked his plane.
I've never seen the movie Alaska, but the book in question feels like it was probably more of a survival story rather than an adventure. The only additional detail I can give is that the teacher assigned us to draw a scene from the book, and since the protagonist shot the polar bear in the head, many of the boys in the class, myself included, decided to draw that scene, complete with exaggerated gore.
"Alaska" was about survival.
I wonder if your teacher may have deliberately altered some information (e.g, the boy shooting the bear) to make the story more relevant and provocative to the grade level and whatever discussion questions that were given?
I've only seen the Nostalgia Critic's review of it, but wasn't it about the father's survival while his children were on an adventure of sorts to rescue him? Again, I'm not familiar with the "Alaska" book, but it seems like the protagonist for my book was an adult male and it was told from his point of view.
27th Dec 2001
Romancing the Stone (1984)
Corrected entry: The end credits of the film don't have the usual "No animals were harmed during the filming..." Maybe this is because when the Little Mule 4WD is being chased, it clearly runs over a chicken.
Correction: Not all films have this disclaimer, even if no animals were harmed, because the AHA has to be present and not all films are willing to pay for them to come out. Without any actual evidence of why this film doesn't have the disclaimer, this isn't trivia but speculation.
Correction: I tripled checked the scene. The chicken did not get killed. It was under the truck but got away and wasn't killed.
The entry doesn't say the chicken was killed. But since you can see that the truck ran it over, the filmmakers probably weren't allowed to put the "No animals were harmed" section in the credits.
That's not entirely accurate. First off, the American Humane Association has to be on site to independently oversee animal treatment. If a film chooses not to hire them, they can not legitimately use the disclaimer, even if no animals were harmed. Since many filming locations were outside the US, it's unlikely they were present. Additionally, if the AHA is present and an animal was injured or killed but the production crew followed AHA guidelines, the film can still use the disclaimer.
1st Aug 2022
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Question: Why did Diana destroy the mall's security cameras, and why did she want the little girl to stay quiet?
Answer: At this point in time, her gig as a superhero is not public knowledge, and she wants it to stay that way.
How would that accomplish anything considering there were many people in the mall who saw what happened?
As the other answer indicated, Diana/Wonder Woman wasn't yet known publicly as a super-hero. A video recording is different from eye-witness accounts of what people actually saw or believe they saw. Memories are faulty, they fade, and everyone sees and remembers things differently. Regarding the child, I interpreted it as Diana just motioning in a friendly way for the rather precocious girl to stay put, behave, and quietly wait for her mother.
In my opinion, it wouldn't, and it's just another example of the shoddy writing in this film.
Answer: This was long before the age of superheroes, when everything was normal and meta-humans were just theories in a lab. It was her appearances which stated it all. Remember the tagline, "The Dawn of Justice Begins with Her."
27th Oct 2021
Saw II (2005)
Question: Why would there be a tunnel system with an industrial bathroom beneath a house in a neighborhood? I know John Kramer was involved in real estate with his wife and lawyer before he became Jigsaw, so it would make sense that he probably designed it, I'm just not sure what purpose it would serve.
Answer: It serves as the perfect location for John to set up and play his "games."
But it was mentioned in Saw IV that John was involved in real estate development prior to becoming Jigsaw. So if those tunnels already existed underneath those houses, what purpose would they serve?
17th Jun 2020
The Incredible Hulk (1996)
Darkness and Light: Part 1 - S1-E11
Plot hole: When Hulk and Banner have been physically separated by the nutrient bath, they are both wearing tattered pants. Given that Hulk and Banner were previously occupying the same body, this should not be possible. Hulk was the one that went into the nutrient bath, so if Banner's body was separated from Hulk, then Banner should be naked.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It was done deliberately as a form of censorship. They didn't want to show Bruce's genitals.
Explaining why the mistake occurred doesn't invalidate it. Unless you're suggesting the nutrient bath also was able to duplicate the pants.
You realise a character can be drawn naked without actually showing their genitals (and/or breasts in the case of women), right? The Little Mermaid is a good example of this.
11th Apr 2022
Spaceballs (1987)
Question: Planet Spaceballs intends to steal all the air on Planet Druidia. Spaceball city and Planet Druidia are neighbors. When Megamaid explodes, her head lands on a beach on a planet that presumably has air. Why not steal the air on the planet inhabitated by apes? There's apparently no air shield. Additionally, the desert planet where Yogurt lives also has air and no air shield. Two other planets, in addition to Planet Druidia, that have breathable air.
Answer: It also might stand to reason that the very fact that Druidia has a shield is what makes it viable. It almost creates a docking port for Mega Maid who was presumably designed for that very purpose. After all, what other purpose could a space maid with a vacuum possibly have?
Answer: The Spaceballs are a race of bullies, they only pick on planets they know have no defense, like Druidia. Yogart, like Yoda, was a very powerful being with mystic powers, While the planet of the Apes were highly intelligent and were most likely able to out smart a race of idiots.
Answer: In the context of the movie, the Spaceballs seem to hate Planet Druidia. So why not steal air from the planet they hate? In a more meta behind-the-scenes context... it's just better for the plot for them to target Druidia since it makes more sense dramatically and creates stakes for the story.
18th Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Plot hole: The whole premise of the movie is that due to a botched spell, people who happen to know that "Peter Parker is Spider-Man" are pulled inside this universe. It's a bit of a stretch already that amongst those people is...Peter Parker himself, twice over, but let's say it makes sense. The problem is that Jamie Foxx's Electro does not meet this condition; he never found out. You could say it's a retcon or it's a different universe from the original movie's, but even this cop-out explanation is negated by the movie itself when Max Dillon makes a joke that shows that he didn't know Spidey's identity or even race.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Although Max didn't discover Peter's identity on film, an explanation of why Max knows his name IS offered. When the villains are talking about what happened before they found themselves in the MCU, Max indicated that once he tapped fully into the power grid and information systems, there was nothing he didn't know at that point. Since we know there is a clandestine organization tracking Peter from the end of ASM1, it's possible Max gained the info from their database.
In the interest of clarity, you refer to the one line that goes "I was stuck in the grid, absorbing data."? Nothing about tapping fully, and becoming omniscient as the correction presents. So we have to give it that specific meaning and make a connection to the obscure postcredit scene by Fiers in the unfinished trilogy that asks Connors if he said anything to the boy imagining that it produced data that was 'on the grid' somehow, and Electro never processed this information in the movie. Not sure if it's quite an"explanation offered", since the movie offers none. It's a 'possible' explanation like the other one people use, about hearing Gwen say Peter's name (I like this one better because at least it would give a special meaning to a throwaway line and I do I love attention to details).
Suggested correction: I don't find it such a stretch that he knew Peter's name but didn't know what he looked like.
When Spider-Man is explaining his plan to defeat Electro to Gwen, Gwen addresses him as "Peter." Electro was laying on the ground nearby and likely would have heard this. Presumably, knowing that Spidey's real name was Peter was enough to pull him in.
There are almost 10,000 "Peter" in New York alone in our world. Knowing just the super-common first name wouldn't cut it and the movie does nothing to support this theory, in fact does everything to undermine it (Strange's explanation, Electro's joke, complete lack of addressing it, etc). Also if he overheard that bit in the original movie, he would have also learned their plans to defeat him.
Suggested correction: I guess we're all going to ignore the fact that this Electro has a completely different look than the Max we saw previously. It's quite possible he's from a different universe.
He's not from a different universe than the Electro from The Amazing Spider-Man 2. The Lizard and the Andrew Garfield version of Spider-Man both know who he is, and he talks about events from the aforementioned film. His different appearance is also explained in the film.
All that means is he went through similar experiences and has a similar appearance as the Max they knew. Ala J. Jonah Jameson.
Suggested correction: It's not people who know who is Spider-Man that are spilling in, it's people who are connected to him in any way.
No, no. Strange says it explicitly "That little spell you botched, when you wanted everyone to forget that Peter Parker is Spider-man? It started pulling in everyone who knows that Peter Parker is Spider-man" and so on. That's why in the end they fix it by making everyone forget who Peter Parker is, not who Spider-man is.
25th Feb 2022
The Simpsons (1989)
Question: I, like Marge, don't know much about football. Why is Homer disappointed to own the Denver Broncos team? I know his first choice was owning the Dallas Cowboys, but he seems to especially dislike the Broncos.
Answer: I don't think the writers had anything particular in mind when choosing the Denver Broncos to be the butt of the joke. But I wonder if it's meant to be a clue where Springfield is. But, while this episode did air late 1996 when the Broncos had a winning season, given the amount of time needed to produce the episode, it was written when the Broncos were a mediocre team at best. From '92-'95 they had a 32-32 record and never finished higher than 3rd in their division. And the Cowboys and Broncos are in separate conferences, so they're not particularly rivals. But as Phaneron points out, the Broncos ended up winning back-to-back Super Bowls in the following 2 season after this episode aired, so Homer is a very lucky guy.
Probably also worth mentioning that by the time this episode had aired, the Broncos had an 0-4 record in the Super Bowl, and to this day I believe they hold the record for most Super Bowl losses.
The Buffalo Bills also had an 0-4 record at the time of airing having lost 4 straight years.
The Vikings are also 0-4 in the Super Bowl. The Patriots have 5 losses (although only had 1 at the time this episode aired).
True, and they would have been a funnier pick for Homer to end up owning, given that two consecutive of those four Super Bowl losses were to the Cowboys. Although Homer fantasizing about being John Elway in the episode Cape Feare makes his disdain for the Broncos rather funny.
29th Jan 2011
Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
Question: When Clyde is about to die from the bomb, why didn't he just end the call on the phone he was calling from? He could have probably cancelled the detonation.
Chosen answer: Unfortunately, that wouldn't have done it. Once the phone on the bomb received the signal there was no going back.
Oh, and you know this how?
Because that's generally how cellphone bombs work. Nobody's on the other end to answer it, so it's not triggered by being answered. As soon as any call signal is received, game over.
18th Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Stupidity: In the first part of the movie, Peter has to deal with the various 'visitors' and bring them too Strange. But the device Strange will use is just going to send them home no matter where they are (conveniently at the push of a button that even complete ignoramus can push) and there are visitors he does not know about, so everything up to that point has been meaningless. Then it becomes a matter of 'curing' every one of those visitors, but if -as it seems - they have been fetched moments before their deaths, 'curing' them is not going to fix anything. They are still going to die or end up in prison for life due to the horrors they committed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Part of the problem we have is that instead of just dealing with the Multiverse, they're also creating parallel or alternate realities in those universes since everyone is pulled from a different point in time in their realities, so any changes besides their death is going to create a new timeline. And I think part of the plan to send them back cured was that from their they could change their course of action or be able to reason with their Spider-Man, which would mean it's better than nothing.
Yes, that's the idea, with all the problems we underlined and the movie ignores entirely. Much like when in Avengers Endgame they don't show you how Cap brings back the stones with the precision required, they elegantly skipped showing us if and how each of them avoids being impaled, drowned, dissolved, or how does it even work for those fetched by the 'same' timeline. We'll see if they deal with these messy timelines at any point in the future.
Suggested correction: With the exception of Doc Ock - who learned Spidey's identity shortly before he died - there's nothing to suggest the other villains were fetched from their realities moments before their deaths, or that they will die upon returning to their realities. Whether or not they end up in prison after returning is irrelevant to the fact that Peter wants to help them. If he doesn't cure them, then they are free to continue causing mayhem regardless of what reality they are occupying.
It's stated in the film that BOTH Otto and Norman died while fighting Spider-Man and that both were pulled from their reality shortly before dying. Max then recounts his fight before being pulled and says "I was about to die." Then Curt asks Max if he died too, but they get interrupted before we find out.
"Shortly" is a relative term. Goblin discovered Spider-Man's identity at Thanksgiving dinner and then died a day or two later. Electro's fate was rather ambiguous, but Jamie Foxx himself implied prior to The Amazing Spider-Man 2's release that he would be appearing in more films, likely including the Sinister Six movie that never came to fruition. We know from The Amazing Spider-Man that Lizard didn't die.
"Shortly before dying" as in pulled during the fight that they died during, not a few days before. It wasn't about being pulled when they found out who Spider-Man was.
Even so, if Green Goblin is pulled from his reality 5 minutes before his death, that would be considered shortly, but it certainly wouldn't be mere moments before he died as the original entry was suggesting. The movie never explicitly states how soon before their deaths they were pulled, therefore we as viewers can reasonably assume that there could have been just enough time for them to alter their course of actions and prevent their deaths.
Also, the reason why Peter wants to 'cure' them is not because they are causing mayhem, but as he explicitly says, because he's not comfortable sending them back when 'some' of them will die - thing is, he can't know that curing their conditions will save them, the whole idea kinda comes out of nowhere. I submitted it as Stupidity because I was sure someone would object it's not a plot hole since it's just stuff the characters 'believe' and there's no proof it's true, however it's funny that 90% of the stuff Peter does in this movie is probably completely pointless.
Saying that he can't know that curing their conditions won't save them is like a doctor saying they won't give a cancer patient chemotherapy because they don't know if it will save them. Their chances of being saved are certainly better if they are cured and cease fighting Spider-Man. If Osborn is returned cured before he attempts to impale Spider-Man with his glider, then that would certainly prevent him from dying in that situation.
I absolutely respect the fact that they want Spidey to be heroic and that the moment he knows that they are going to die he wants to do something about it, that's why I say that it's just funny that there's no indication at all that it would work (by all logic it would not) but it's elegantly glossed over. Let me remind you though that he's not a doctor that wants to cure his sick patient, he's a doctor that wants to cure someone who died 1-2 decades earlier in accidents he doesn't really get into the details of.
There not being an indication that it would work does not make it a stupidity. He can't let the villains remain in his reality, or else it will cause a major multiversal catastrophe. He doesn't want to send them back to their realities and die fighting other Spider-Men, so he does what he thinks is his best option. For this to be a stupidity, there would have to be a rather obvious alternate solution that he overlooked (such as asking Strange to make everyone forget Mysterio's broadcast instead of making everyone forget Peter Parker is Spider-Man).
I don't want to make my own movie in my head, the one we got is more than enjoyable, and I don't want to say that the character is stupid (any movie would be easily solved with afterthought or cynicism, such as "let Strange do his thing"); I merely pointed out that the plot takes you for a ride forcing you to buy premises that are taken as 100% fact and logical (they never ever even imply the fact that what Peter does could be pointless or problematic - in most movies, saving dead people is not a good idea) when they are anything but that. If I know that a crazy person died driving a car into a tree, curing his craziness is one step and not even the most important (would a crazy Norman not survive, if he goes back in time at the right moment and knows what is going to happen? again, the bigger flaw being that if he remembers dying, how can I undo that?) but the movie is surely not going for the "It's most certainly useless, but aww, at least he tried" angle.
18th Jan 2022
General questions
I saw a movie or TV show back in the early 90's when I was a kid. I only remember one scene because it scared the crap out of me. I believe in the scene, an older man (probably 60's?) was fed feet-first into a shredding machine or large wood-chipper and killed. It was outside. The camera was inside it looking up. And I think there was a woman behind him who either pushed him in, or was trying to get him out. He was awake, shouting and struggling. Ring anyone's bell? (And it was not "Fargo.").
Answer: This might be from the TV series Friday the 13th. The episode is called "Root Of All Evil." The plot of the episode deals with a cursed mulcher. Anybody that gets thrown into it is killed and money is expelled from the other side. The richer the person is, the more money that comes out. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD9XnWh5Mx4.
Holy crap! I think that's it! Quickly scanned through the episode, and it seems to (mostly) match up with what I remember. Not exactly, but considering how young I was, I could just be misremembering it. Additionally, since I was born in '88 and probably saw it when I was 3-4 years old (so '91-'92ish), it would also line up because the show ran until 1990 and was likely still on the air in re-runs.
In fact, I'm 90% sure the death at 31:13 in the video is the exact scene I'm remembering. The only difference is that it's a man and not a woman who pushed him in, but that just could be my memory being dodgy since I only saw it once about 30 years ago. Thank you! I think you got it.
You're welcome.
Answer: I know there're several films where someone has died in a wood-chipper or similar device. License to Kill (1989), Bond is dangling over a shredder and Dario is standing over him. Pam shoots Dario and Bond pulls him into the shredder.
That's a good example, but it's not the scene I'm looking for. It's hard to give details due to the 500 character limit. But the scene seemed to be outside during the daytime (I think there were trees in the background), I think the old man who died was wearing a flannel shirt (that could be wrong), and I seem to recall him having like gray or white hair. I think the woman was trying to save him.
I don't know the film you're talking about, but have you tried looking up "woodchipper" or "body in a woodchipper" in IMDB's plot keywords? The latter has 13 movies listed.
Yeah, I've scoured IMDB for it, but the problem is almost everything I run into is either from the year 2000 or after (like I said, I saw this in the early 90's on TV), or just not the movie/show I'm looking for. I'm assuming it might have been like an obscure episode of a TV show or movie that might not necessarily have a plot keyword attached.
Answer: They would likely take her hostage and hold her for ransom.
Phaneron ★
So the Federation was probably offering a bounty/reward for her capture?
Possibly, but given the criminal nature of the Hutts to begin with, it would be in line for them to try to capture her if they became aware of her presence and ransom her off to the highest bidder, be it the Trade Federation, her home planet of Naboo, or the Galactic Senate.
Phaneron ★