Tailkinker

Chosen answer: Will stabs Davy Jones' heart (with assistance), which, as far as can be determined, gives him the captaincy of the Dutchman at that moment. Exactly why Bootstrap has to cut out his heart isn't clear - presumably something about the ritual Jones used years before makes it a necessary part of the role of captain. The crew don't come back to life, because they're technically not dead - their lives are tied to the Dutchman. Their aquatic appearance is because of Jones defying his orders - with a new captain at the helm, one who will do the job properly, they revert back to their human appearance. As for Will getting his "honeymoon", couple of possible reasons. Technically the job hasn't started yet - could be that, as Will's still in the real world, he can get his day on shore before he goes off to ferry souls. Probably more likely is that Calypso wanted him to have his "honeymoon" - he did, after all, take on the captaincy under less than ideal circumstances. While Jones chose to take on the position, Will had no real choice in the matter. Calypso's something of a romantic, so it would be entirely in character for her to allow Will and Elizabeth to consummate their marriage before he has to leave for ten years.

Tailkinker ★

Answer: Will also mentions, whilst on the island with Elizabeth, that it's almost sunset. This suggests that his role as captain didn't begin until sunset that day. So he was able to honeymoon that day only.

Answer: Yep, there is. As Carl's house initially flies away, there's a shot from inside a child's bedroom where they watch the house flying away. In that shot, next to the bed on the very far left of the screen, there's a small pink-ish teddy bear, who's a major new character in the upcoming Toy Story 3.

Tailkinker ★

Chosen answer: Nope, nothing official was ever said. There are very few truly original film storylines these days; a close examination of most films would allow one to swiftly note plot similarities to any one of a number of preceding movies. Both Cars and Doc Hollywood fit neatly in a very standard storyline of an outsider coming into an unfamiliar cultural group, which they learn to appreciate and benefit from, while their presence likewise benefits the group they encounter. While the two are unusually similar, no comment on the subject was ever made.

Tailkinker ★

Answer: Pumbaa means "to be foolish, weak-minded or negligent". Timon has no apparent meaning in Swahili, but is historically a Greek name, meaning "respectful", a slightly ironic choice given his usual sarcastic attitude.

Tailkinker ★

Answer: (1) David Crosby and Jimmy Buffett both appear as part of Hook's crew - whether either of them is there as a result of losing a bet is unknown. (2) Traditionally, in stage productions of Peter Pan, the actor who plays Hook will also take on the minor role of Mr Darling, Wendy's father. As, in the story presented in the film, Wendy is now elderly, her father is likely long dead, and thus no opportunity exists to maintain the tradition. However, you can hear Dustin Hoffman as the voice of the pilot on the plane ride to London, giving a nod to the tradition.

Tailkinker ★

Answer: Actress Glenn Close is a pirate too. The first pirate that Hook goes to on deck and puts in the Boo Box. Https://youtu.be/TCx-M8dcDhk.

Answer: It's Phil Collins - he's the police officer.

Chosen answer: It's a semi-religious ritual being performed by a deeply spiritual alien race. As a result, the answer to any question along the lines of "Why does it have to be like this?" can only be "Because it just does".

Tailkinker ★

Chosen answer: Blind people use computers all the time. There are Braille monitors that interpret the visual images on the screen into Braille. They can also use speech synthesisers to convert the images into audible information.

Tailkinker ★

Answer: Couple of possible reasons. (1) There is oxygen, hence the fires, but it's got something toxic mixed in with it. (2) It's not oxygen, but another gas capable of allowing combustion to occur. Either way, humans couldn't breathe it.

Tailkinker ★

Chosen answer: Because she doesn't want to look silly in front of Ron, who she's in love with. Teenage romance, it's a minefield...

Tailkinker ★

Answer: Because at the start of the film, she gets all flustered when she has a bit of toothpaste on her mouth, and Ron leans over to wipe it from her face. She obviously thinks about this moment a lot because when she smells the love potion during Slughorn's class, she mentions spearmint toothpaste. In the Three Broomsticks she's upset because she has foam on her mouth and instead of maybe wiping it away like he had done at the Burrow, he just gestures to her that she has something on her mouth.

Answer: Hermione is a perfectionist and dislikes having anyone, particularly Ron, pointing out that she erred, slipped up, or did something embarrassing.

raywest ★

Answer: Gump is stated, in the book at least (can't honestly remember about the film) to have an IQ of around 75. While IQ ranges are somewhat subjective, this would usually be considered to indicate a mild or borderline mental deficiency. It also certainly wouldn't have helped that he's been relatively sheltered.

Tailkinker ★

Answer: 8 minutes into the movie, the principle shows his mother a chart of IQ's and points to Gump's IQ being 75.

Chosen answer: While there has been a certain amount of development as the series has gone along, the creators have repeatedly stated that the basic mythology and major plot points for the show's intended run were put in place from the beginning.

Tailkinker ★

Answer: (1) The fake wall was constructed during the robbery - that's why they dragged things out, to give them time to finish the job. (2) The hole in the floor is so that Russell has somewhere to go to the toilet, serving the dual purpose that (a) he doesn't have to sit among piles of his own excrement for a week and (b) no unpleasant smell will build up in the storeroom, which could lead to his discovery. (3) Polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable and can be defeated by a suitably disciplined individual. As a result, the NYPD do not use them as a matter of policy. Even if, in this fictional storyline, they did, the unreliability of the tests and their tendency to give false positives is sufficiently well-known that it's likely that many of the witnesses might refuse to avoid the possibility of being incorrectly incriminated by a bad reading. So it wouldn't be likely to help them much anyway and could actively harm their case if it indicated somebody innocent.

Tailkinker ★

Chosen answer: After the death of Eytucan, Tsu'tey becomes the chief - he was established as chief-in-waiting earlier in the film. After Tsu'tey is killed, the implication is that Jake becomes the new leader - while, yes, he lacks experience, he nevertheless has the respect of the clan for his taming of the Toruk and his role in subsequent events. Also, bear in mind that the Pandoran wildlife entered the battle en masse, something that Neytiri interpreted as Eywa, the Na'vi deity, answering Jake's pre-battle prayer. Between his status as Toruk rider, his actions in the battle and his apparent endorsement by Eywa, that would be more than enough for the highly spiritual Na'vi clan to make Jake their new leader.

Tailkinker ★

Answer: Anakin was born in 42BBY and the events of the film take place in 22BBY, making Anakin nineteen or twenty when he marries, depending on precisely when it occurred in the year.

Tailkinker ★

Answer: To be honest, it sounds like you've got a reasonably good handle on the situation. Initially Marty's in a 1955 where his parents will marry after George is hit by the car, but his father will be the loser we see in Marty's original 1985. The moment that Marty gets hit by the car, the future is changed and he's now in a timeline where his parents will never get married and thus he will not be born. The timeline begins to slowly alter (time is shown to have a resistance to change in the series), giving Marty enough time to reengineer his parents' meeting before he's erased from existence as the new timeline exerts itself. The way he handles it creates a third timeline where his parents do get married and go on to be cool and thus when he returns to 1985 at the end of the first film, that's the timeline he's in. The other Marty that he sees there is one who grew up in that third timeline, with the cool parents, and thus may be a bit different, but who still met Doc at some point, rendezvoused with him at the mall and ultimately went back in time after encountering the terrorists, where he'll encounter the young loser version of his father and will have to turn him into the cool, confident man that he grew up with. In the second film, old Biff goes back in time and gives his younger self the sports almanac, which changes the timeline again, now creating a fourth timeline where George and Lorraine still marry and are cool, but George will subsequently be murdered by this timeline's rich and powerful version of Biff, leading to the 1985 we see in the middle section of the second film. When Marty and Doc go back to 1955 from there, they arrive in the same timeline, the one where Biff will go on to be rich and powerful. As a result of their actions there, stealing the almanac from young Biff and destroying it, they technically create a fifth timeline, one where events in 1955 played out slightly differently but which is otherwise effectively identical to the third timeline, where Marty's parents are cool and successful in the present day. It is quite a complicated situation, with several different timelines involved, and I have no idea how well I explained it, but hopefully that helped a little bit, at least.

Tailkinker ★

Chosen answer: Watching the scene carefully, I would say that Garrett Hedlund plays the character throughout. Hedlund does bear a notable resemblence to Pitt - he was undoubtedly cast as Patroclus for that reason, both because their characters are cousins and because of the requirement to successfully pull off the masquerade as Achilles during the scene - and thus could readily be mistaken for him, given that his face is rarely seen clearly throughout the scene. However, it's not unreasonable that they might have used Pitt in a couple of key shots, in order to preserve the illusion that this really is Achilles fighting, to bring the audience along in making the same mistake that the Greek army have. As for the physique, it can be seen in their introductory sword-fighting scene that Hedlund and Pitt have roughly similar builds - any perceived change in physique is most likely an illusion caused by the shift between standing in a fighting stance and lying limply on the ground.

Tailkinker ★

Chosen answer: Difficult as it might be to imagine, they did indeed transport the horses by ship. Historical evidence indicates that ships of the period could have specific modifications made to their decks in order to carry horses safely. As such, while Agamemnon would not have had them on board his personal ship that we see in the film, it's reasonable to assume that he had a modified "horse carrier" among his fleet.

Tailkinker ★

Answer: According to me, it's possible that they stole the horses from Trojans after the first battle on the beach, where only Hector left alive and took his own horse, whereas the other horses were held by Achilles' men.

Chosen answer: It's intended as a subtle nod to the character, yes. It's been suggested that the Mandarin might be the villain in a future third film, so using the name "The Ten Rings" was a bit of foreshadowing that there might be a greater power behind the terrorist group.

Tailkinker ★

Chosen answer: Obi-wan's one with the Force at this point, so, given that the Force has been shown to grant precognitive visions, he may simply have seen that Luke survives and does go to Dagobah and is telling Luke that he will go there as a statement of fact. Or it could just be a bit poorly worded.

Tailkinker ★

Answer: Earth is six years away. The company can do whatever the hell they like, partly because there's nobody there to stop them, but mostly because ultimately what people really care about is results. If they keep up a steady flow of unobtanium, whatever methods they took to get it will be largely ignored. And with nobody around to say otherwise, painting the Na'vi as the aggressors in the situation would be relatively easy, allowing them to claim that they were merely defending themselves and that the Na'vi brought it on themselves by their hostile actions.

Tailkinker ★