Tailkinker

6th May 2013

Iron Man 3 (2013)

Question: How could surgeons remove the shrapnel from Tony's chest when they were unable to before?

Answer: Advances in technology. Throughout the film series, we've seen improvements being made to technology, so it's entirely reasonable, particularly with Stark turning his considerable intellect towards the medical field in order to remove the Extremis infestation from Pepper, that he could have determined a safe method of finally removing the shrapnel.

Tailkinker

Question: At the end Peter dumps Gwen so she'd be safe. But wouldn't a keen super villain notice that they dated for a bit and capture Gwen?

Dankydanc100

Chosen answer: Any supervillain would have to (a) work out that Peter Parker was Spider-Man, (b) learn that he once dated Gwen and (c) make the assumption that he still cared about her. Yes, this is still conceivably possible, so, true, she's not absolutely safe. On the other hand, if they continue to date, then points (b) and (c) become rather obvious, making her an almost certain target. Breaking up with her minimises the risk.

Tailkinker

25th Apr 2013

Doctor Who (2005)

Victory of the Daleks - S5-E3

Question: When they are talking about the Daleks at the end of this episode, this is what they are saying: DOCTOR: It's not that. There's something else. Something we've forgotten. Or rather you have. AMY: Me? DOCTOR: You didn't know them, Amy. You'd never seen them before. And you should have done. You should. (They go inside the Tardis and it dematerialises, revealing a glowing w shaped crack in the wall.) My question is: What is the Doctor meaning by what he is saying to Amy?

Shadow5

Chosen answer: The Doctor is referring to the events of the two-part finale of the fourth series of the relaunched show, "The Stolen Earth" and "Journey's End". These episodes featured a major Dalek invasion of Earth, something that Amy should remember. What concerns the Doctor, leading to the conversation you refer to, is that she apparently doesn't, because if she did, she'd have recognised the Daleks the moment she saw them.

Tailkinker

25th Apr 2013

Doctor Who (2005)

Chosen answer: This happened during the events of the 1975 story, "Terror of the Zygons".

Tailkinker

Question: Just a question about absurd tactics. It's clear that Sidious vs. Yoda is a draw. Adding another of the Jedi Order's leading Master in Obi-Wan Kenobi would probably tilt that duel in the Jedi's favor. Since they're on Coruscant together, why don't they face Sidious together, defeat him, then go to Mustafar?

Answer: Yoda has to run away with his tail, figuratively speaking, between his legs. Calling it a draw is generous. Obi-Wan's assistance could potentially have tipped the balance, true, although bear in mind that Sidious had already successfully taken out three senior Jedi Masters in a matter of seconds, while simultaneously holding his own against master duellist Mace Windu. Regardless of the outcome, their attack would alert Anakin to their survival, allowing him to surround himself with a force of highly trained clone troopers, forcing them to run a gauntlet to reach him that they couldn't possibly survive, leaving the Sith in control. Likewise, they can't go after Anakin together first, because it would simply allow the Emperor to do the same with the same result; the Sith remain in power. If the Sith are to be taken out, the only option is to attempt to take them both out at the same time, while they're complacent, mistakenly believing that the Jedi are all gone. It's a risky tactic, certainly, but it's the only one with a chance to destroy the Sith completely.

Tailkinker

Question: In the first movie, a female pirate joined Jack's Crew who was called Anamaria. In this movie, she wasn't in the movie. Is there any explanation why she wasn't in this movie?

Blunder Bot The Mistake Machine

Chosen answer: No. Most likely Zoe Saldana, who took on larger roles after appearing in the first movie, was simply unavailable for what would only have been a minor supporting role. As for an in-universe explanation of what happened to Anamaria, none has been given.

Tailkinker

25th Mar 2013

The Incredibles (2004)

Question: Has anyone figured out the significance of Helen's name? Each of the Pars have a name that relate to their powers but I can't think of Helen's connection. Bob: BoB, or Best of the Best; Violet: ultraviolet rays, outside the visible spectrum; Dash (as in running around); Jack-Jack: Jack of all Trades (his multiple powers); possibly also Syndrome; his "syndrome" is hero worship/envy.

Teru_Kage

Chosen answer: There is no connection. And let's be honest here, Bob supposedly meaning "Best of the best" is so hopelessly tenuous as to be meaningless as any sort of correlation to his abilities. While the three children, yes, do have names that correspond to their powers in some way, their parents do not.

Tailkinker

Question: Is this is a mistake in the book or just a blooper in the film? In the movie Deathly Hallows Part 1 Harry doesn't ever disarm Malfoy he simply snatches the wand. Does that mean Harry is still the owner of the elder wand? Another thing I noticed is in Deathly Hallow Part 2, Hermione disarms Malfoy in the room of requirement after which Harry saves Malfoy and never disarms him again! So doesn't that mean that the Elder wand belongs to Hermione now? I haven't read the books so I'm a bit confused. This might be a stupid question for a few of you'll but I really want to understand this, as every time I see the movie I research on it and never get an answer that really explains or satisfies me, especially about when Hermione disarms Malfoy in the Room of Requirement!

nirali_shah91

Chosen answer: The Elder Wand responds to power, thus, should a wizard defeat its owner (by killing them, capturing them, disarming them or whatever other method), it will transfer its loyalty to them. During the first of the two Deathly Hallows movies, Harry takes Draco's wand away from him, thus defeating him to the satisfaction of the Elder Wand, which transfers its loyalty to him from that point on. Hermione defeating Malfoy in the second movie makes no difference to the Wand, as it has already moved on to a new master.

Tailkinker

Answer: When Hermione disarms Malfoy in the room of requirement, Malfoy was using his mother's wand at that time. So Hermione disarming Malfoy makes no difference to the ownership of the elder wand.

To clarify, if Draco had (unknowingly) still been the Elder Wand's master when Hermione disarmed him, even though he was using his mother's wand, the Elder Wand could have transferred its loyalty to her. That is what happened with Harry. He grabbed Draco's own wand from him, even though Voldemort physically possessed the Elder Wand. Also, Draco's wand appears to have switched its allegiance to Harry, as he found it responded quite well to his commands. Draco never knew he commanded the Elder Wand, and he never physically possessed it.

raywest

23rd Mar 2013

X-Men 3 (2006)

Question: I have three questions regarding the end scene. 1. How come Jean can't crush Wolverine's body? I ask this because we can see her easily kill all people who walk too close to her. 2. Why didn't Wolverine inject Jean with the cure instead of killing her? 3. What would happen if Jean got injected with the cure?

Loesjuh1985

Chosen answer: 1) Apparently the combination of Logan's unbreakable skeleton and healing factor was enough to keep Jean from shredding him - it's possible to see his body getting damaged and repairing itself in a few shots. 2) Because, while he's capable of getting close to her mostly intact, the same isn't really true of anything he might be wearing or holding, so any cure syringe he carried with him would be destroyed. 3) Who knows? Given her extreme power level, the cure might or might not have worked, and, considering the final shot of the movie, which suggests that the cure isn't permanent anyway, her powers would likely return before long.

Tailkinker

17th Mar 2013

The Dark Knight (2008)

Question: This has been killing me ever since I saw the movie. How did Harvey and Rachel get tied up in the warehouse? Who did that? Some sites say that it was Wuertz and Rameriz and that they were corrupt. But when Dent confronted both of them they said "I didn't know what they were going to do to you." What do they mean by that?

Answer: It's pretty straightforward - Wuertz and Ramirez were involved in kidnapping Harvey and Rachel and handing them over to the Joker's men, but they weren't aware that the pair would subsequently be tied up and surrounded by explosives; that was done by the Joker's henchmen.

Tailkinker

Question: When Pippin and Merry are with the orcs (or uruk-hai or whatever they're called) one of the orcs keeps insisting on eating them. What does he mean when he says, "Do they give good sport?" And then he does this weird thing with his tongue to which Merry looks at him oddly. I don't know what he meant by that. (00:29:45)

Zinka17

Chosen answer: "Do they give good sport" is simply a way of asking whether they're being kept alive to provide later entertainment; could they be used in some sort of organised hunt, could they serve as gladiatorial fodder in an arena fight, that sort of thing. The weird thing with the tongue really just seems to be a sort of odd tic, designed to emphasise his rather disgusting nature.

Tailkinker

Question: What happened to Anakin Skywalker's father?

Chosen answer: According to his mother, there was no father; Anakin was conceived through the Force itself. Expanded Universe materials suggest that this occurred either as part of or as a consequence of Sith experiments carried out by Darth Plagueis, with the intent of creating the ultimate Sith apprentice.

Tailkinker

3rd Mar 2013

The Avengers (2012)

Question: Bruce Banner brings up at one point what SHIELD is doing in the energy business. That is actually a good question. If they want to use the Tesseract to build weapons, why would they spend millions of dollars and their top researchers on energy?

Friso94

Chosen answer: Because the Tesseract is a powerful energy source and only by understanding that energy can they hope to harness it to create the weapons that they need. And there are other applications other than weapons. For example, SHIELD's Helicarrier clearly requires an insane amount of power to keep running; mastering the Tesseract and the potentially unlimited power it provides could give them a whole new range of options there. Likewise their ground installations, vehicles, equipment, all of these need power too. There are plenty of good reasons why SHIELD would look into non-weapon-based uses for the Tesseract's energies.

Tailkinker

26th Feb 2013

The Dark Knight (2008)

Question: The whole point of the ending is that if it was revealed that Dent was a murderer, the criminals that he locked up would be released. Same thing with the fake cop he was threatening. I get all this, but here's the problem: Dent falsely proclaimed that he was Batman in front of the press. Yes, he was lying and the real Batman later showed up, clearing his name, but wouldn't it be just as damaging to Dent's image to show him as a vigilante thug that half of Gotham hates for being responsible for the deaths of innocent people? Surely, at least for a brief time, the locked up criminals would have sufficient grounds for appeal.

Brad

Chosen answer: It might, had the story lasted more than a few hours. Immediately after the Joker's capture, which occurs on the same evening as Dent's press conference, reporters are already asking Dent about working with the Batman, indicating that they're already aware that the story is false. From the public point of view, Dent told a lie in order to set himself up as bait to draw out a dangerous criminal. This can only enhance his reputation, and, given that the story lasted, at most, a few hours, there could be no possibility of any criminals managing to get an appeal in.

Tailkinker

20th Feb 2013

Titanic (1997)

Question: I've seen this movie about 10 times now but I always wondered the next thing. After the Titanic hits the iceberg, they knew the ship would sink. Couldn't they go back to the iceberg and survive there and wait for help? Surely there would be more places, and it would be warmer on the iceberg than in the water?

Loesjuh1985

Chosen answer: Trying to turn the Titanic and return to the iceberg would just have put additional strain on the ship's structure, likely hastening its sinking. So the only available option, short of swimming, which is obviously insane, would be to use the ship's lifeboats to ferry passengers over to the iceberg, which, given the lack of capacity, would have taken multiple trips and a considerable amount of time. Once they reached the iceberg, there would be no way to tie the boats securely to the iceberg to allow the passengers to cross over safely; icebergs usually have pretty sheer sides anyway, making boarding impossible without specialist equipment that they didn't have. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that somehow this could be done, the passengers are now sitting on a large block of ice in the middle of the night, in, for the most part, inadequate clothing. Hypothermia would rapidly set in, leading to death within at most a couple of hours, before any help reached the scene.

Tailkinker

Question: This might be a dumb question, but when Snape and McGonagall are dueling, it seems like McGonagall casts a spell which Snape blocks and it hits the Carrows who are behind him. My question is did the Carrows die as a result of that? Was it really the Avada Kedavra curse? And if it was McGonagall's spell then whose fault was it? Hers? Or Snape's because he blocked it?

Answer: The Avada Kedavra is depicted as involving a flash of green light, which is not present in this case; McGonagall's spell has a more fire-like appearance. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Carrows were merely knocked unconscious when Snape deflected it (almost certainly intentionally, given his true allegiances) towards them.

Tailkinker

20th Feb 2013

The Avengers (2012)

Question: How is Hulk a total mayhem on the aircraft carrier, almost killing Romanoff, but at the end he is acting as a team member? Banner did reveal his secret how to control not turning into Hulk, but not how to control Hulk himself...

Answer: During the end sequence of The Incredible Hulk Banner discovers that he can aim the Hulk in the right direction, give it a goal, which he uses to defeat the Abomination in that film. Key to that appears to be willingly accepting the transformation into the Hulk, which he does by choosing to jump from the helicopter. On the Helicarrier, Banner doesn't want to transform, it's caught him by surprise, he's fighting it, which is why it takes ages, is seemingly very painful and, as an involuntary change, the Hulk is out of control. In the final battle, Banner chooses to make the transformation, to "suit up", as it were, and thus the change is swift, painless and results in the cooperative Hulk capable of working with the others towards a goal.

Tailkinker

Question: Why doesn't Ron get off the knight on the last move of chess before getting attacked by the queen? Does he have to stay on it?

Joel Sheffield

Chosen answer: Unfortunately, he has to stay on. By the rules of the game, he IS the knight, he's not just riding it, so, when he allows himself to get taken in a sacrifice play, he has to take the consequences.

Tailkinker

Question: When it first shows the orcs carrying Pippin and Merry, Pippin shows evident concern for Merry and asks, "What about your heart?" To which Merry replies, "It was just an act. See? Fooled you too." I'm just curious as to what makes Pippin think that anything is wrong with Merry's heart. It never stated or showed anything about Pippin or Merry until this scene, and the last we see of them in FOTR is of them being carried away by the orcs, completely conscious and unharmed. However, while I have the extended version of TTT and ROTK, I only have the theatrical version of FOTR, so I was wondering if this was ever mentioned in a scene during it.

Zinka17

Chosen answer: You misheard, I'm afraid. Pippin says "You're hurt" not "Your heart".

Tailkinker

Question: This has confused me ever since I heard who Balin was in the movie. While Gimli doesn't necessarily look young in Lord of the Rings, his cousin Balin in the Hobbit looks much much older than he does, and not to mention the Hobbit was 60 years prior to the events in Lord of the Rings. There must be a huge age gap between the two or perhaps Balin's white hair has no significance on his age? And for that matter, what are the life expectancies on dwarves, they are pretty much the only races in Tolkien's creations that I've never really heard. Judging from their contrasting age appearances in the movies he would seem to be about 100 years older than Gimli?

ofordgabings

Chosen answer: While the most common usage of the word cousin is to describe the children of siblings, known as "first cousins" who would be of the same generation, "cousin" actually covers quite a wide range of relationships, which can readily cross generations. In this case, Gimli's father Glóin is Balin's first cousin as their fathers, Gróin and Fundin, were brothers. Gimli is therefore Balin's first cousin once removed, making the age difference between them (113 years, to be specific) quite reasonable. Dwarves in the Tolkien stories generally live to around 250 years old, with correspondingly longer generations than humans.

Tailkinker

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.