Question: Back in 1885 why doesn't Doc change the letter he sent to Marty, asking him to bring a can of gas?
Phaneron
19th Aug 2019
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Answer: This would create a different timeline, not the timeline they are in.
Answer: That would not be possible as in 1885, Doc sent the letter on September 1st, and 1955 Doc sent Marty to 1885 on September 2nd so it was a day later and on the 1st, Doc was not expecting Marty to turn up. However, one CAN ask why Marty and Doc didn't go to the local Western Union office and change it (or write a new one) there since it was in their possession per the gentleman in part 2.
Changing the letter while Marty is in 1885 with Doc would accomplish nothing, because it doesn't it instantly travel to the future. Marty at the end of Part II, for his part, may receive the letter almost immediately, but the letter itself had to wait 70 years to be delivered to him.
I mean, there's no solid rules to time traveling, but just for argument's sake it seems like the letter idea could work... in the franchise, when something is set in motion, the effects usually take place immediately. Take for instance when George and Lorraine kissed at the dance in Part 1. The picture of Marty and his siblings went right back to normal, even though the kids had not been born yet. Doc and Marty changing the Western Union letter "could" have had an immediate effect and a gas can could have materialized in the Delorean, much like we've seen newspaper headlines change before our very eyes, disappearing gravestones, etc.
In your examples, the changes occur to future events. The items that changes, like the picture and newspaper, are from the future themselves. They can't change the past by changing events in the future (like they do in Bill and Ted's). This is why Doc and Marty couldn't go back to 2015 to stop old Biff from taking the DeLorean.
30th May 2017
Better Call Saul (2015)
Corrected entry: When Chuck is testifying in response to Jimmy's question about Chuck's supposed EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) Chuck states he is only affected when current is flowing. But Chuck reacts to a cell phone battery Jimmy had planted in Chuck's pocket. A disconnected battery would not have any current flowing.
Correction: The whole point of this sequence is to show that Chuck's EHS is all in his head. It doesn't matter that there is no current going through the battery, because Jimmy knows Chuck will react to it regardless once he sees it.
A valid point. It just struck me as funny that Chuck, a meticulous attorney, should have some basic understanding of the electricity to which he claims to be so sensitive.
10th Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Why didn't Hulk use the Infinity Gauntlet to snap Thanos and his army? He was able to snap everybody that Thanos killed and survived, so he would have survived another snap.
Answer: The gauntlet fell off after his first snap, then Thanos arrived from the past and destroyed the building, separating them. Hulk never got near the gauntlet and the stones during the ensuing battle, so he didn't have an opportunity to try a second snap to destroy Thanos.
Really what they should have done was pulled the stones off the gauntlet and separated them again, and not run around with a fully assembled and powered up Gauntlet for Thanos to grab.
I agree.
That would mean they had to touch them, and nobody besides Hulk, Thor and Carol could touch one without dying.
Ordinary humans can't just grab an infinity stone. Even when Thanos takes the power stone out of gauntlet you see it start to destroy them.
Only the Power Stone has been shown to kill normal people who try to hold it. Hawkeye literally held the Soul Stone in his hand in this movie.
Because he made the necessary sacrifice. Anyone else touching it, big problem. Could be an exception though. The power, reality and space gems have been proven to be untouchable and killing anyone who does (with exceptions though). Time gem is very carefully handled as well so I wouldn't touch that one either. Mind gem, who knows?
I don't recall the Time Stone killing anyone who touched it. The only example I can think of was the Red Skull presumably being killed when he handled the Tesseract, but was in actuality teleported to Vormir. The Reality Stone has a will of its own, so someone could feasibly handle it without harm. You're wonder about the Mind Stone is correct, as no human character was shown in any movie to have handled it directly. Overall though, I would say that I disagree with someone trying to remove a stone from the gauntlet, as one stone could easily be lost, and Thanos could still kill every hero at the battle even with one or more stones missing.
The reality stone attaches itself to anyone touching it like a parasite and slowly kills them. I'd say it's a bad idea to touch it. As for the time stone only the ancient one and Hulk actually touched it and there is reason Strange handles it carefully and without touching it. As for the Red skull, don't really know if he is really alive on Vormir. Who knows what the tesseract did to him?
Whether or not Red Skull is still alive is an interesting topic, but either way, I'd argue that while the Tesseract transported him, it itself is not what made him in his current state, but rather his curse to guard the Soul Stone and the planet of Vormir itself, as it is a dominion of death as Nebula stated.
12th Aug 2019
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Stupidity: This film reveals that the theme park was built upon a dormant volcano. This means that John Hammond either neglected to do a geological survey when picking a location for his park, or simply ignored it and foolishly gambled that the volcano would never erupt.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Lots of people live right next to dormant volcanos. It can be thousands of years before a dormant volcano erupts. Might be a risk, but not as much as lets say living on a tectonic boundary or in tornado alley.
There's a difference between assuming the risk of living in an area prone to a natural disaster versus building a theme park that's completely reliant on tourism revenue in an area prone to a natural disaster. If a person's home is destroyed by a volcano, they can eventually get a new home, even if it takes a year or two. If a multi-billion dollar theme park is destroyed by a volcano, it's not something that can be replaced so easily, especially since no insurance company in their right mind would cover any of it. Additionally, the island in this film is fictional, which means the writers deliberately chose for a volcanic eruption to be the reason for the evacuation, when they could have just as easily made it so that the military decides to carpet-bomb the island or send in ground troops to gun down all the dinosaurs.
A dormant volcano is a dormant volcano, no reason to think it will erupt only years after you build a theme park on it. The area is not "prone" to a natural disaster. The eruption is a total surprise. Vesuvius erupts once every 2 decades or something and a lot more than a simple theme park is inside its destruction zone (red zone), including 800,000 people. And that is an active volcano. Take a look at Carney Park, a military recreational facility on top of a dormant volcano. Stupid?
Also, the examples you gave are areas with civilian populations that rely on those types of attractions to help stimulate the local economy. Isla Nublar is a privately owned island with no civilian population to speak of, other than park employees, meaning it is 100% reliant on tourism for its revenue.
How many theme parks are built in California, which is severely prone to earthquakes?
That's not an apples to apples comparison. California has a heavy civilian population and theme parks help contribute to their economy. Jurassic World is located on an isolated island with no civilian population and has to rely completely on tourism to stay in business.
29th Aug 2012
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Question: Is there any reason, other than to further the plot, that Jack and Will fight over possession of Davey Jones's heart? Their plans once they have control of the heart are not mutually exclusive as Will wants to free his father and Jack wants his debt with Jones settled. They have shown previously that they can work together, so why couldn't one of them take control of the heart and make the demands for both?
Chosen answer: Will having control of Jones' heart would not help Jack in the slightest. Will's intent is to KILL Jones, therefore freeing his father. If Jack had control of Jones' heart, he'd only use it to settle his debt, given Jack's history of treachery. Yes, they could work together, but that would solve nothing: Bootstrap agreed to serve Jones FOREVER. The only way that debt is settled is with Jones' death. That wouldn't help Jack, because, as he says: "With Jones dead, who's to call his terrible beasty off the hunt, eh?"
Davy Jones doesn't have to die in order for Will's father to be freed from service, though. As captain of the Dutchman, Jones has the power to relieve Bootstrap of his duty for any reason or no reason at all. The third film makes it clear that Jones is at the mercy of anyone that is in possession of his heart, when Beckett becomes his overlord and orders him to kill the Kraken and hunt other pirates. Will and Jack could have easily taken possession of the heart and ordered Jones to both release Jack from his debt and release Bootstrap from the Dutchman. Jack even proposes the idea in the next film to Will that Jack can be the one to stab Jones' heart and then release Bootstrap from his service, allowing Will to still be with Elizabeth.
30th Jul 2019
Game of Thrones (2011)
Question: Why does everyone argue over the best way to remove Cersei from power with minimal civilian casualties when they could have just sent Arya to assassinate Cersei? Given her training with the Faceless Men, she could easily infiltrate the Red Keep and get the job done. On top of that, Arya wants to kill Cersei.
Answer: Daenerys and her allies don't just want to kill Cersei, they want to claim King's Landing and free her people from Cersei's grip. The problem is the people of Essos viewed Daenerys as a liberator but the people of Westeros view her as an outsider and usurper. They would never follow Daenerys if she had Cersei assassinated. That is Daenerys' dilemma, she certainly has the ability to wipe Cersei out and obliterate her armies but doing so would make her a tyrant. Which as it turns out is exactly what happens.
But no-one has to know that Cersei was assassinated. Arya has the ability to impersonate anyone she kills, so she could pretend to be Cersei afterwards and profess to the citizens of King's Landing that she has yielded the throne to Danaerys and that she is going into exile.
That plan would be incredibly suspicious. Knowing what they know of Cersei it is highly unlikely the people of King's Landing would believe that she would accept defeat so easily and then voluntarily exile herself, never to be heard from again. In order for that to work, all of Cersei's advisers and closest allies would have to be similarly eliminated, or they would have to be on board with the exile plan. If they are all killed it sort of makes it obvious that something is amiss. There's no way they would be fooled by Cersei suddenly doing a 180 and completely changing her personality by accepting defeat without a fight. If any part of this plan goes wrong then Daenerys would look worse than just an assassin, she would also be deceitful to the people she hopes will willingly accept her rule.
24th Dec 2004
Blade: Trinity (2004)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Blade's base is blown up, there is a shot of Blade being thrown into the air. This is not CGI or even wirework. When the director asked the pyrotechnicians to rig the warehouse, they decided to make the explosion bigger - without telling anybody. The resulting explosion threw the stunt double three metres into the air and nine metres backwards.
Correction: It's just plain false.
Simply saying "It's just plain false" is not a valid correction. You need to provide more detail, such as the stunt coordinator, director, script supervisor, etc. stated in the interview that what is stated in the original entry is not how it happened.
MythBusters Episode 186: Bouncing Bullet - The shock wave from an explosion can propel a jumping person to a distance far beyond what he could achieve on his own. Busted.
19th Jul 2019
The Simpsons (1989)
Character mistake: Burkina Faso is listed as being among the Southern Hemisphere locations Bart called when Homer is looking over the phone bill; since Burkina Faso is completely within the Northern Hemisphere, it would have made no sense for Bart to call there.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It may not make sense, but Bart isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. In this same episode, he looked at his globe and thought Rand McNally was a country and was convinced by Lisa that the citizens there wear hats on their feet and that hamburgers eat people. Additionally, he could have just decided to prank call someone there if for no other reason than he thought the name of the country was funny.
Entirely possible, but since Bart had a globe right there to refer to, even someone with his limited geographical knowledge would have been able to tell that Burkina Faso is in the Northern hemisphere, unlike the other locations he did call as depicted in the montage (Antarctica, Argentina, unspecified South American nation, etc).
24th Aug 2017
Game of Thrones (2011)
Corrected entry: Jon sends a raven to Daenerys in Dragonstone, and Gendry runs back to Eastwatch, reporting their dire position. Both of them get there surprisingly quickly, and then Daenerys manages to fly to them in basically no time at all, despite them being at least 1,500 miles apart, according to previous distance implications.
Correction: This is explained numerous times by un-synced timelines. This is not an error.
While there are numerous examples of un-synced timelines in this show, this is not one of them. Jon and crew are stranded on the island of ice for a couple days at most, and it would take at least that long for a raven to fly from Eastwatch to Dragonstone, and at least another day for Dany to fly from Dragonstone to Eastwatch. This doesn't even include the time it would take for Gendry to run back to Eastwatch and get the message out in the first place. Even by conservative estimates, Dany's arrival happens too quickly. This is just one of many times in the last couple of seasons where the writers threw logic out of the window in favor of rushing through the story.
15th Oct 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Question: How are Captain America, Black Widow, and Black Panther talking to Proxima Midnight through the Wakandan cloaked shield? What's she looking at? Trees?
Answer: It's not a cloaking shield. It's a defensive barrier. There would be no need to have a cloaking shield within the city because anybody that's inside the city would seemingly already know that Wakanda is hidden.
The cloak is to hide the city. If Cap flew in and only saw trees...what is the Black Order looking at and talking to?
The cloaking shield is what hides the city from overhead view, so aircraft that fly over can't see that there's an advanced city hiding within what is believed to be a third-world country. The barrier around the palace is to prevent enemies from attacking. That's why the "space dogs" are being torn apart when they try to go through the shield. When it becomes apparent that they can get through the shield when they attempt to do so in large numbers, Black Panther orders a section of the shield to be opened in order to bottleneck the forces in so that they can't surround the palace and penetrate the shield from a side that's not as well guarded.
This wasn't an overhead view. They were flying low and in a straight line into trees that on the other side hid buildings that were the same height. They weren't looking down.
Irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is the Wakandans build that shield, and they can do anything they want with it. Perhaps the cloaking part is discarded to boost the shield's defensive capabilities.
That's an illogical answer: they can do what they want. Perhaps? Where is that in the movie? These are guesses not answers.
Are you saying they don't have full control over their own shield that they designed and can manipulate very specifically, as seen in the movie?
"Perhaps the cloaking part is discarded to boost the shield's defensive capabilities." - where is that in the movie? This website would not exist if every response was "they can do whatever they want".
It is when we are talking about future technology in advanced civilizations. This entry is also a question, not a mistake. There is a simple explanation for it, so that is the answer.
This is a theory not an explanation. An explanation would be backed up by facts from the movie.
There isn't an in-film "explanation", but that's a distinction without a difference. If in a movie we see someone in one place and then several scenes later we're shown them somewhere else, there isn't an "explanation" for how they've got there, but there might be plenty of perfectly reasonable theories about how - drove themselves, got a ride, took the bus, etc. This is a wholly fictional technology and the "facts from the movie" are that people can talk through it, just like they can choose to open specific narrow sections. So we take at face value that it's possible, because there's no in-film reason to assume it isn't possible.
14th Jun 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Why did time not end when Thanos destroyed the stones, and what happens in now there aren't any? The Ancient One stated that the stones control the flow of time, and removing even one of these opens up the world to unimaginable horror. Well why did nothing happen after Thanos destroyed them all? And now that our timeline has no stones, how would Dr. Strange be able to stop Dormammu from coming back?
Answer: The way I understood it, removing the stones from one timeline into another timeline is what The Ancient One was talking about. The "new branched reality" is what would be overrun by the forces of darkness. But, even if she meant this reality, the reality where Thanos destroyed the stones, The Ancient One said it was their chief weapon, not their only weapon. Bruce then tells her Doctor Strange gave the time stone to Thanos and The Ancient One says maybe she made a mistake. However, since Thanos eliminates half the population of the universe, including the forces of darkness, whatever forces she was talking about may not have been around to try and attack Earth. Or in the 5 years that we don't see, there was an attempt and other weapons were sufficient.
Answer: In the comics the stones will be replaced by something else equally powerful to compensate for their loss. I suppose the same applies to the MCU. These powers need to have a physical presence in the universe, in one way or another.
The only problem is the films never insinuate this at all. The Ancient One flat out states that not having the stones would be bad for the universe, and yet Thanos destroys the stones with absolutely no adverse affects to the universe whatsoever. This movie played very fast and loose with the rules they established regarding the stones and time travel and I feel like things like this were massive flaws.
The universe is a pretty big place, though. There could very well be bad things in another part of the universe that have yet to affect our galaxy. Additionally, the forces of darkness that could potentially threaten the universe may be curbed by a cosmic entity such as the Living Tribunal, whose existence in the MCU was acknowledged in "Doctor Strange" and could very well appear in "The Eternals" or "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3."
I just believe the ancient one didn't even know. The ancient one isn't always correct, as Bruce proved. And the bad thing was taking the stones away from their timeline, creating timelines where they are not supposed to be, it says nothing about destroying them.
That to me is still bad writing. You have a character whose entire purpose in the movie is to give exposition, and the exposition she gives is apparently incorrect. That's all well and good but that still needs to be addressed at some point. Some character should have brought up the fact that the stones were destroyed (and incidentally, remain destroyed in the main timeline) and the Ancient One should have addressed that fact. Otherwise, like the original question points out, it leaves a bit of a gap in the film's logic.
Answer: I believe the filmmakers have said that the energy of the stones was dissipated into the universe when their crystal vessels were destroyed. So that while they didn't have a physical form anymore, their essence remained and continued to regulate the flow of existence of the Universe. Presumably the energy can't then be reconstituted into the stones without some sort of profoundly intricate magic/science, the kind of power only possessed by gods and/or ancient elemental beings. Also, the Ancient One says that Hulk taking the time stone would be good for his timeline, but would leave hers without their weapon, which I presume means they wouldn't have the time stone to help the Sanctum's usual efforts in holding dark magic at bay. The actual effect of removing the essence of a stone from its timeline is still open to speculation.
If the ancient one was only talking about the time stone then Cap wouldn't have to bother bringing all stones back. No, she was talking about all infinity gems. Remove a stone and that universe is doomed.
Answer: The sorcerers may have other ways to stop Dormmamu from returning (even if those ways are currently unbeknownst to them). This could be addressed in the sequel. Additionally, since Dormmamu would have to know that the Time Stone was destroyed in the first place, he may well just stay away rather than falsely believing that he can be trapped in a time loop again.
Answer: She said the world not the universe. She said "without our chief weapon against the forces of darkness our world will be overrun." Theory: since Thanos used the stones to destroy the stones and Hulk heard what the Ancient One said, he could have used the stones to bring back their stones along with everyone else. He couldn't have know who all died in the universe, he could have just undid everything from 5 years ago.
10th Jun 2019
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Question: Instead of telling Stark to turn the donut around why doesn't he use a sling ring?
Answer: The range of the sling rings hasn't been defined. They were in deep space at this point, so they may have been too far away for Strange to open up a portal on Earth for them to step through.
In Endgame, Strange opens at least one portal from across the galaxy. For example, we see the one opened from Titan that he, Spiderman, and the Gaurdians all come through. Unless his sling powers suddenly increased after the great purge, he should have been able to open a portal from deep space on the ship.
Answer: The Q Ship was travelling in some form of hyperspace. It would be reasonable to assume that the slingring could not work under those circumstances. When he does use it later, it is from the surface of the planet Titan.
And when they arrive on Titan his idea to protect the time stone changes. He instead looks at different time-lines.
Why would it be different in hyperspace? The ship has its own gravity.
By definition, hyperspace exists outside normal time and space. Depending on how the sling ring works, it may not be able access normal space.
7th Jun 2019
Dark Phoenix (2019)
Continuity mistake: Despite having the Phoenix power at the end of X-Men: Apocalypse, which manifests around her as a Phoenix firebird and she uses to defeat the titular villain, Jean Grey doesn't actually get merged with the entity until 9 years later in this movie.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Jean used her full psychic powers in the previous film, not the Phoenix Force. Even without the Phoenix Force she was an incredibly powerful, Omega Level mutant.
The Phoenix firebird is literally shown to be emerging from Jean's body when she kills Apocalypse. She can't both have the Phoenix firebird already within her and then somehow also have it invade her body in this film. The mistake is valid, and I would argue it should be listed as a plot hole more than a continuity error.
8th Jun 2019
Iron Man (2008)
Factual error: A tank's main gun could not blast Iron Man out of the sky, as depicted in this film, and the "lucky shot" theory holds no water. In military history, there are only a couple of instances of tanks using their main guns to shoot down aircraft by chance, and those involved tanks repeatedly firing their main guns on known flight paths until an aircraft literally ran into a tank round. However, in this movie, Iron Man comes out of nowhere on no known flight path, he's not recognizable as an aircraft, he's traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, and he's only airborne for about 4 seconds before he's hit with a tank round. The tank gunner could not possibly identify Iron Man as a new target, elevate the main gun, track him and fire in 4 seconds. Modern tanks do not have the ability to acquire and track fast-moving targets with the main gun, nevermind fast-moving aerial targets.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: All that might be true in the real world but in this movie we know that the forces of the Ten Rings have been supplied with advanced weapons from Stark Industries. A retrofitted tank weapon that can engage a superhero in a flying suit is no more fanciful than a hand held paralyzing noise device or an arc reactor.
Yes, it's a fantasy film. You could even fairly say that no fantasy film can be in error by virtue of its fantastical premise. That does not negate a factual error.
Tony Stark is an extremely intelligent inventor that makes advanced weapons for the military. A targeting system for made for tanks lies entirely within the realm of possibility presented within the world of this franchise.
And, yet, it is established in this first movie that the Ten Rings terrorists only possess as much Stark technology as Obediah Stane allows them (which isn't much). Obviously, the tank is not very advanced technology, as Tony merely sidesteps the second tank round and he utterly destroys the tank with a wrist-rocket. There is no indication in the film that the Tank is advanced Stark technology.
No one is saying that the tank itself is Stark technology, only that it's weapon can be retrofitted with a targeting system. It wouldn't be much different than retrofitting an older model car with a GPS system. The reason Iron Man is able to sidestep the second shot is because he's expecting it, and even then, he barely dodges it.
No way the single-shot main gun of ANY style tank would be "retrofitted" to track and fire on high-speed aerial targets. Any refit would require rebuilding and automating the tank and turret and replacing the main gun (which fires only single rounds) with an automatic repeating cannon, essentially turning it into an advanced mobile anti-aircraft platform. The tank in the movie is recognizable as a standard, slow, single-shot British Chieftain MK10, so it's not Stark industries.
Well you definitely know a hell of a lot more about tanks than I do, so I concede my previous points.
It takes a man to admit he's wrong. I doff my cap to your courage.
21st May 2019
Untraceable (2008)
Question: It's been a while since I've seen this movie, but I remember a scene in which the FBI gives a press conference urging users not to log on to the website, as they then become accessories to the murders. If that's the case, why not say that anyone who accesses the site to watch someone be killed will be charged as an accessory to murder since they can presumably identify the IP addresses of those who watch? It definitely would be a lot of people that would be charged and would cause its own separate and long investigation, but it could have deterred a lot of people from watching.
Answer: Most people who log onto a website know they can be traced through their IP address. Also, this is a movie, and plot details often are not logical or realistic.
For sure. But I guess to expand upon my question, is there any reason in particular in the real world why the FBI wouldn't threaten to charge people as accessories to murder? As in, are there any legal loopholes that would prohibit the FBI or any law enforcement agency in the U.S. from charging people if the extent of their involvement is driving up views which hasten the victims' deaths? I wanted to submit this as a mistake, but I didn't know if there were extenuating circumstances.
30th Apr 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Corrected entry: When the Avengers got the space stone and mind stone from the past, they were in the form of the Tesseract and the scepter, but when Steve goes back to replace them, they are in their raw forms. If they want to undo any offshoot timelines, they would have to replace the time stones in their original encasements, at least some of which have been destroyed in the process of obtaining the raw stones. If the Tesseract doesn't exist in Tesseract form before Captain Marvel, would the light speed ship by Dr Larson have been made, etc. And the events of Avengers 1 would have been altered...Ultron/Vision/Scarlet Witch/Quicksilver timelines would likely be disrupted if the scepter itself is not replaced, only the mind stone. It would be an anomaly in the time line.
Correction: They aren't concerned with creating any alternate timelines, as they won't affect their own timeline. They only agree to return the Stones to the point where they are taken in order to avoid any major catastrophes being caused by the Stones' absence in their respective timelines (i.e. the Ancient One tells Dr. Banner that she needs the Time Stone returned to her reality, as it is her chief weapon against forces of darkness). The Mind Stone ending up in an alternate timeline as a result of being removed from Loki's scepter and not leading to the creation of Ultron or giving the Maximoff twins their powers will not lead to a catastrophic event.
This is not consistent with Captain America's comment "I know, clip all the branches"
Another way around that would be to return the Time Stone to the Ancient One first and then have her use the Time Stone to return the Space and Mind Stones to their previous housings. We know the Time Stone is capable of doing that because Thanos used it to bring the Mind Stone back into existence after Scarlet Witch destroyed it.
Their primary concern appears to be removing the stones from where they "should" be, or taking one and leaving others - the ancient one implies it's that imbalance which causes a "bad" timeline to branch off, the black line she demonstrates, not just making other changes. Otherwise even Hawkeye going back in time and removing a baseball glove would have catastrophic consequences and need to be remedied.
He has the infinity stones. It's quite possible he could have used them in some fashion to return the others to the original form. For example, he could have done it or asked the Ancient One to use the time stone to return them to their original form. Regardless, there is no way he or Hulk wouldn't have planned for this before he left. They were in no rush to return them. They had a time machine.
7th Jun 2011
X-Men: First Class (2011)
Corrected entry: Alex Summers, AKA Havok, is the younger brother of Scott Summers [Cyclops] and is a teenager in the film. Yet in the 90s, when the first X-men was set, Scott was still a teenager when the Cuban missile crisis occurred in 1962, so 30 years between events.
Correction: Scott and Alex are brothers in the comics yes, but it is never explicitly stated that they are supposed to be brothers in the movies. They have the same last name, but no further details are given, therefore, no mistake.
It is stated 2 movies later in X-Men: Apocalypse that Scott and Alex are indeed brothers.
25th Apr 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Spoiler! Time seems to be defined as somewhat linear, with alternate realities branching off rather than changing the past of any given timeline. But if that's the case, how can Steve go back in time and stay, which should branch off a new reality with him in it, but then "catch up" with "our" reality? Seems like if he stayed in the past he'll have made plenty of changes.
Answer: The Russo brothers have elaborated somewhat: "the old Cap at the end of the movie, he lived his married life in a different universe from the main one. He had to make another jump back to the main universe at the end to give the shield to Sam." They didn't explain his jump back, which leaves the door open for interdimensional travel. They certainly implied there's a bit more to the story which might get revealed in time. But thus far we know there's an alternate timeline where 2019 Cap was running around helping people (again, per Russo interviews), not interfering with "our" timeline.
Answer: He stayed behind but didn't reveal himself or change anything whilst there. That way the future isn't altered and stays "the same." This does mean that the timeline we have been following is the timeline where Cap stayed behind and there were basically 2 Steve Rogers at all times. That can theoretically work in a linear timeline idea.
True, I think that does mostly line up. Peggy told him she got married to someone he rescued, but that could easily have been a cover story so as not to tip him off about what happens too early.
He originally had the tools to go back return the stones and then return back to his timeline. Instead of returning back right away when the job was done he just hung around and lived his life. Then as an old man used the particle to return back to his original timeline effectively leaving the different timeline he had just been living in for the last however many years. He could always return back to the the original timeline at any point. He just decided to wait.
Yeah see I don't agre to this because if he had used the particles again to go back to the future after living his life in the past he would have ended up on the platform wouldn't he? I say he just grew old and waited for that moment of his younger self going to back to sit down on that bench.
That's not possible. (a) He was in the ice for 60 years. How would he know what not to do? (b) There's nothing he could do that wouldn't change the timeline. Anything he did means someone else didn't do it from the previous timeline. A house he rented, food he ate, places he went. Even whatever fake name he uses alters history as it wasn't there before.
The point is all those things did exist, but they didn't mess with the events that occurred in the movies. So not a different timeline than the one we have been following, but the same. This can only be done if the second Cap stays out of history. I'm not a fan of the butterfly effect, it doesn't have any basis, that's why I always explain timelines in this way. An extra spoon in the dishwasher or an extra tank of gasoline doesn't change the timeline so much that it can't be the one we were following anymore. So yes, he changed the timeline, but that's the timeline we have been following.
Answer: Since Cap was frozen for 70 years, he could potentially live out his life back in that time without risking interfering with his future self's actions which would allow him to arrive back to the same point where he left. It's not too dissimilar from the first two "Back to the Future" films where Marty arrives back in 1985 from 1955. As long as Marty takes no actions to prevent himself from going back in time in that moment, then he can arrive back to the same point he left without causing a major disruption in the space-time continuum. Consequently though, since Cap married Peggy when he went back, this would effectively erase the marriage she revealed having had in "The Winter Soldier," which could cause minor differences in the timeline.
This is the point though - it's made clear that they can't change the past, just branch off a new timeline. And given we know she got married in "our" timeline, him going back created a new one, one where she married him instead. And that's all well and good, but that leaves him stranded in timeline "B", with no way to jump back to "A." That said of course there's no real reason this couldn't be hand-waved away as using Dr. Strange or other tech to cross dimensions somehow, it's just mildly annoying they didn't clarify it. :-).
Well the way they did it makes it complicated I think. The Pym particles made a certain type of time travel possible I think, a different kind than the time gem for example can do. It's irreversible, but not linear. The linear timeline is what the ancient one explained about the gems. They had to be put back in their place in time in order for the fabric of the universe to stay in tact. Only that had to be restored, but not what Cap did, or even creating alternate timelines in general (which did happen with Loki disappearing).
I feel though that since two Caps were existing in the same timeline, one of which was frozen for several decades, then the Cap that went back to be with Peggy can still end up in the same spot as long as he doesn't interfere with himself or his fellow Avengers in their "future" missions. He might cause a slightly different timeline to happen, but as long as he lets his other self play out the events as they originally unfolded, it allows that other self to be in the same position to travel back to return the Infinity Stones and then be with Peggy, rendering any branching timeline to be inconsequential because he is putting himself in a time loop. Just like Marty in "Back to the Future." Marty's actions in the past create a slightly new timeline, but he is still traveling back to 1955 at the exact same point in this slightly different 1985.
Can't compare it to Back to the Future, there was always 1 Marty in Back to the Future since he goes back to a time before he was born. The changes to the timeline in Back to the Future should have butterflied a lot away. Not sure what you mean with "still end up in the same spot" if there are 2 Caps. The Cap that went back to be with Peggy didn't have to "end up in the same spot", just stay out of history until his past self goes back. Like you say, it's a loop for him.
By "end up in the same spot," I mean the Cap that coexists with the Cap that goes back in time is allowed to play out the events from "The Avengers," "The Winter Soldier," "Civil War," etc. without his alternate self interfering in matters, thus he is able to reach the same point in time where he goes back to return the Infinity Stones and then be with Peggy, which is what creates/continues his loop.
He wouldn't be stranded in "B" if he still had his TimeGPS device (which I imagine he would've held onto). That could have allowed him to make the jump back to the "A" timeline. That device is what links/keeps the time traveler tethered/able to return to their original timeline and not get stuck. Either he used it to make the jump back as he normally would have, or he could've employed some of the great minds of the alternate "B" timeline he was living in (i.e. Hank Pym, Howard Stark (if he prevented his assassination in the "B" timeline), Tony Stark, etc...) to use the GPS's 'tether' as a way to get back to "A"
Exactly. What people seem to miss is that throughout the movie, the time travelers are creating alternate timelines, but always return to their original one. That's the way time travel works in the MCU.
That's a good point - if they go to the battle of New York and make any change at all, that's a new timeline which they're technically in, but they can still return to their original one without any problem. That new one then carries on without them.
Answer: What's interesting is that during Civil War when Peggy dies and people are carrying her coffin, there is a white haired man of Steve's build carrying one side, but it never shows his face. I believe this is a little Easter egg to show he was there all along.
Answer: Remember Cap took three vials of Pym particles. One for himself and Tony and another for this reason.
Answer: Theory 1: The MCU as we know it is a product of Captain America going back in time and returning the stones. Theory 2: the older Captain America is from another timeline. That's how he got a new shield.
17th Apr 2019
Split (2016)
Question: What happened to him as a little boy when he was hunting with his Father and Uncle? Was he sexually molested?
Answer: If you are referring to the girl Casey, then yes, the movie is implying that her uncle had been molesting her.
15th Jun 2010
The Dark Knight (2008)
Question: After the MCU explosion there is a scene where the Joker has his head sticking out of the back seat of a police car and police are chasing him. What is this? He can't drive from the back seat, so what exactly is happening?
Answer: This one always bugged me too. So, I guess the cop cars following were actual Gotham police? Or just additional henchmen? If they were police, how on earth could they have managed to lose the car the joker was in?
Answer: When Marty received the letter from Doc in 1955, as seen in the second movie, Doc wrote down that he didn't want Marty to go to 1885 to rescue him because he was happy living in the past. Instead, he wanted Marty to take the Delorean straight back to 1985 and then destroy it so it could never be used for personal gain again.
But once Marty appears in the past Doc could easily change the letter, changing things such that Marty would bring gas with him.
That wouldn't really work with Marty already there. Since Marty and Doc are occupying the same timeline, changing the letter wouldn't do anything until Marty traveled back into the future, at which point the altered letter would be unnecessary since they had found a way for Marty to return.
Phaneron ★
Changing the letter wouldn't have made a difference. When Doc decides to leave 1885, Marty tells Doc that he ripped the fuel line so, with the fuel line damaged and no gas available, bringing a can of gas wouldn't have helped.