Factual error: No one would have used the phrase "black hole" in 1939. The term "black hole" was first used in 1963 in "Life" and "Science News" and by Ann Ewing in an article in January of 1964. Princeton physicist John Wheeler popularised the term.
lionhead
7th Aug 2023
Oppenheimer (2023)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Nobody uses the term "black hole" in the movie, only the term "dark star". Oppenheimer once refers to it as a hole in space, but not a black hole.
When Oppenheimer walks into the room of cheering people (after he says he'll be in Pasadena), someone says "paper on black holes, it's in!"
Ah, yes, I see. I wonder, though, if it's really that unlikely someone would call it a black hole before it was popularized? It is essentially what they are. Certainly, it's possible somebody before 1963 called it that without it ending up in a paper. Just a coincidence, then.
5th Oct 2023
Goldeneye (1995)
Question: Was any reason ever given as to why Bond's gadget-filled car was barely used in this film? It seems odd to give the series a fresh start in many ways, make a big deal about his car with missiles inside the lights, and then he drives it for 30 seconds and gives it away. Why bother giving him a car at all?
Chosen answer: There hadn't been a Bond film for seven years, and it was a new Bond. They wanted to get away from the gadgets and show him at his best. It was a way to let people accept Pierce Bronsan, watching what he can do. He put a lot of Sean Connery into it.
I can see that, but it just seems weird to highlight the features the car has and then not use them. Would have been simpler to omit it entirely, but presumably BMW wanted some product placement.
According to Wikipedia, the deal with BMW came at the last stage in production, so they were only able to put the car in the movie but not make scenes where the gadgets are actually used. I can imagine they'd have to rewrite parts of the script and take more time filming to do that.
16th Aug 2023
The Longest Day (1962)
Factual error: All throughout the movie, whenever some German officer, speaking German, wants someone to shoot off some artillery piece, he screams, "FIRE!" German words for shoot include schießen, drehen, trieb, aufnehmen, abschießen, erlegen, spross, jagen, and ballern, but certainly not "fire".
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: But they don't say "shoot," they say "feuer," which is German for "fire." This is the accurate word for the German command to firing a weapon. Btw, most of the words you take as an example don't mean "to shoot," but are only associated with shooting. Like "jagen," which is German for "hunting."
Nay - They are screaming "FIRE!" They aren't saying feuer. It probably is indeed illegal to yell "Feuer!" in a German crowded theatre. Lol. My original assertion of a mistake in this movie was because they go to great lengths to specifically always be having the Germans speaking German with subtitles - to not be one of these war movies where all the German officers are speaking English (usually in a refined British accent for some reason - lol) - and I maintain they dropped that in this case and went for the English word - and it's a mistake - Whatever the word feuer means, even if it does, or CAN mean SHOOT!, they CLEARLY (and multiple times throughout all the battle scenes) are screaming the English word "fire," not the German word FEUER. The two words may be close, but they do not sound the same. Watch the movie and I'm sure you will hear what I'm saying. You will hear "FIE ur," not "few ERR." There is no long 'I' sound in feuer.
You are entitled to your opinion, whether you hear "fire" or "feuer," but I hear them say "feuer" enough (Omaha beach scene). About everything else you say, I think the problem is easy - you don't understand the German language. Now, I'm not a native German speaker, but my knowledge of German is adequate enough to know that the German word for firing a weapon is "feuer." I'm also pretty sure the English word "fire" means "flames" as well, so your logic is flawed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO1Em0NCCzE. At the 2:03 timestamp, you can hear a German say "feuer" to firing a weapon.
Ok, I just went there and no one says anything at 2:03. (If you mean two minutes and three seconds into the movie). Maybe you meant two hours and three minutes? Gimme a day or so to watch the whole movie again, and I will mark every time I think they say "feuer" and every time they say "fire." If I'd heard "FEW AIR," I wouldn't have asserted that there was any mistake. I would have assumed that was German. I hear some actor from New Jersey screaming "FIE UR" every time - lol.
I gave a link to a YouTube video of Bundeswehr soldiers training. In the video, at 2:03, you hear a German say "feuer" when ordering to fire the artillery. Just to prove, Germans say "feuer" when firing weapons. Plus an idea of how they pronounce it.
Yes, what happened is, I copied and pasted that link - but I included the period you put at the end - and that just brings up Youtube movies, so I thought you meant for me to go to The Longest Day movie - lol. My bad. Again, I acknowledge that there is no way to account for accents and dialects - you made a good point - I just always hear what sounded like some actor from New Jersey saying FIE URR! - (Or should I say JOIZEE) - lol.
Maybe that's one time they did it the correct way - there are more than one times throughout the movie where you hear "FIRE" and not "FEUER" - they are not pronounced the same.
Ok - I am GIVING you the understanding that both English and German have a word that means both flames and shooting. I will acknowledge that. But you are not understanding my logic. I repeat: Irrespective of whether any German officer ever screamed "feuer" to mean "shoot", you will, beyond doubt, hear that very strong, long 'I' sound every time they scream the word. Anyone who is reading this is invited to watch the movie, and the word FIRE, pronounced "fie ur" with the long 'I' sound, will be heard at least two or three times - never "few air." Feuer is, (supposed to be), pronounced "few air." But, then, what does "supposed to" really mean, when it comes to any language? I guess differences in accents have to be considered. I mean, how many English words sound different than they seem to be spelled? - tons.
Think logically about the fact that these actors in the movie are actual Germans, and they are supposed to speak German in the movie. So, absolutely no reason for them to say "fire." They can pronounce it however they want; they mean to say "feuer" and not "fire."
Yes, but I hear FIRE, not Feuer. But then, a lot of British people pronounce Lia fail as LAYAFOIL, so I will admit that there may be no way to prove my theory that the makers of this movie abandoned their attempt to stick with German and went with the English word FIRE in this one instance.
I agree, it's more likely they're saying "Feuer." Even Google Translate says "fire at will" translates to "Feuer frei." But the pronunciation is closer to "fire" than what you're suggesting. You seem to be implying "feuer" is pronounced more like "führer."
Yes, a German might be saying "feuer" some time in some actual war, but in this movie, you will hear "fire" every time. Go watch the movie and you will definitely hear that long 'I' sound. Ultimately, this may be impossible to totally resolve, as I guess there may be no way to determine how different Germans with different accents might pronounce something. I hear the dude from New Jersey saying FIE UR! lol.
23rd Apr 2009
X-Men (2000)
Question: Jean and Storm combine their powers to get Wolverine to the top of The Statue of Liberty. Why is this? Wouldn't Jean's telekinesis be sufficient enough to levitate Wolverine to the top without Storm's power?
Chosen answer: Jean's powers were not that powerful at the time.
But they were powerful enough to lift cars, water, etc. when she was like 7.
It's more that she doesn't have enough control over it.
In addition to what Lionhead said, Xavier also says he altered her mind in "X-Men: The Last Stand" by creating psychic barriers to lock out the Phoenix personality, which also seemed to have altered her memory. So it's entirely possible (and likely) her overall power reduced when that happened, and didn't start to fully come back until the events of "X2."
14th Jul 2023
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Question: At the start, she was to drive the truck to get gas. She never got there, and yet was able to drive all over. How?
Answer: Furiosa was not getting gas for the war rig; it is presumably fully fuelled. Furiosa was to fill the tank with gas to bring it back to be used for other vehicles.
If you're going to get gas, why have a full tank in the war rig? Put enough in it to be able to get to Gas town, pulling the attached round tank. Fill the round tank and fill up the war rig. Return with lots of gas in a full round tank and a full war rig.
I believe there is some confusion here with how the gas tank system works on the war rig. The truck itself has its own gas tank; the tank that is being towed is completely separate. It's exactly the same as real-life gas trucks.
Why does that question even need to be answered? You're going to use gas going there and coming back. It doesn't matter if the war rig was full or not when it left. Assuming they're going to be gassing the war rig up once they get there to collect the gas, it's going to come back with the exact same amount of gas no matter what. So it really makes no difference whatsoever. Also, what happens if they get delayed along the way? If they only have enough gas to get to Gas Town, but something happens, they'll just get stuck.
I agree, it's not very smart to fill the war rig with just enough gas to get to town. But it sounds like they're saying take whatever you can out of the war rig, and you'd have that much extra gas when they get back. For example, if the rig held 25 gallons and only needed 5 gallons to get to town, you can take out 20 gallons. The rig then arrives in town empty, fills up, and comes back with 20 gallons in the tank. So now you have 40 gallons instead of just 20 (plus whatever the tank holds).
I think the big point is what Furiosa was planning. She filled the gas tank of the truck up to be able to go further with it; she wasn't planning on getting the gas anyway.
Ok, I can understand that... but I still don't see why it's a question that needs to be answered, hahaha. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why every tiny detail needs an explanation or answer, especially when it doesn't really matter for the story.
Answer: What she did most likely took months of planning. Who she could trust to help her. How exactly she could smuggle the girls out, and most importantly, gaining the trust of the boss to the point where he believed she was his obedient slave who could never betray him.
Answer: Nobody knew the war rig was full of gas. They thought she was going to fill the tanker and come back, not smuggle out the girls.
Sorry, can't believe that. The boss guy controlled everything. He would know where and how much gas there was. Also, lowering the truck empty would be a lot different than lowering it fully loaded.
The truck was supposed to be empty when it left. She was taking an empty tank to be filled, but smuggled the wives inside. It weighed probably 300 pounds more than it was supposed to, but that would be imperceptible to the people operating the elevator. The war rig likely weighs several tons.
It's not empty, it is filled with water. The wives were hiding in the tractor.
23rd Oct 2012
Men in Black 3 (2012)
Corrected entry: The boglodites invasion starts when agent J is about to time jump. It doesn't make sense for them to wait 40 years to invade Earth in the the new reality (after Boris succeeds to kill agent K and steal the arcnet) especially when we hear that they would starve to death before finding another planet to consume in case they fail to penetrate Earth. This reasoning is confirmed when we know that in the original timeline they are extinct 40 years ago, which means they were already very very hungry at that time and couldn't have the luxury to wait few more years.
Correction: This is explained if you listen very carefully. The boglodites planet is 20 lightyears away from earth, meaning, it would take Boris 20 years to get back to his planet and then another 20 to return ot invade Earth equalling 40 years.
That's so totally wrong in many ways, not the least of which, that's not how light-years work. More importantly, in the original timeline, it is said that the Boglodites tried and failed to invade 40 years before - meaning shortly after the arcnet was deployed. So, Boris takes the device, and suddenly they decide to wait 40 years? This plot hole still makes no sense.
I think the arcnet prevents them from invading 40 years later, effectively defeating them because they can't reach another planet in time. They didn't invade in 1969 originally. So with the arcnet present (not deployed), the boglodites never invade.
Even if we accept this correction, it still doesn't explain why they didn't starve to death! However, the explanation still doesn't hold. Remember, the Boglodites' fleet "was" there, upon us on Earth, 40 years ago, yet they failed because the ArcNet was deployed. They all came to invade Earth along with Boris number 1. In the altered timeline, Boris 2 travels back in time, kills K, steals the ArcNet, but there is still no reason and no explanation whatsoever for them waiting and starving to death.
They didn't invade in 1969, they invade in the present. J enters a different reality, one without K, but he is is still in his own time. That's where the Boglodites invade because there is no ArcNet. Then he goes back to 1969 so they can deploy the ArcNet and prevent the Boglodites from coming to Earth at all.
20th Oct 2021
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
Other mistake: In the landing scene inside the dropship there is a release valve for all the mechanical suits. No one seems to use this valve to get released, they all just drop spontaneously. Except for Cage, who has to hit the valve every time in order to get released. (00:18:50 - 00:33:04)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They all wait until they are released automatically. Probably deploys at a certain distance from the beach.
I'm not sure this answers the mistake. There's no apparent reason for deployment to be automatic for everyone except Cage. It could be argued that everyone else knew to select "automatic drop," but Cage didn't. However, since that's not covered in the film, it can't be used to explain what happened.
Well, I said it's automatic for them, but it doesn't really have to be. They all know how it works, and he doesn't. They probably have a different method of releasing since their suit is unlocked and they know the system, whilst the red valve next to their head is probably an extra safety measure. He uses it over and over again because it seems to work, whilst it is possible the normal release on his suit doesn't.
30th May 2023
Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023)
Stupidity: There is no reason why any person as intelligent as Janet would keep the knowledge of Kang secret from her family. The extended Pym family are the only people in possession of the one thing Kang needs to escape. The brief explanation she gives is that she wanted to protect her family, but this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and she makes no attempt to explain how this secret keeps anyone safe.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She is obviously scared out of her mind concerning Kang. She, through her fear, had hoped that him being trapped in the Quantum Realm would stay permanent as long as nobody knew about it in the normal universe. In that way, she tried to protect not only her family but the entire universe.
Not only does she not say that she is "scared out of her mind", she also doesn't act like it either. There is no indication that she is so frightened by Kang that she has lost her senses - quite the opposite, actually. She appears to function rationally and intelligently in every other area concerning Kang, except of course for simply telling anyone how dangerous the Quantum Realm is because the movie wouldn't have a plot otherwise. It's pretty egregious and wildly ridiculous.
Of course, she doesn't say that or act like that. But what she saw of him, when she touched his ship, scared her enough to go to all that trouble to keep him in the quantum realm at all costs. She thought it would be safe to leave, that he was trapped forever. Her judgment was wrong, probably caused by her fear. She is only human.
"Fear" is not enough to get past this level of stupidity. My point is that she doesn't act so frightened; she isn't irrational in any other way. It's just a flat-out, stupidly written element of the film that is impossible to believe. There is no way on God's green earth she should keep this secret, even after her family has made it to the quantum realm. I get that the movie is trying to say she is frightened, but this goes well beyond making any kind of sense at all; it's ridiculous.
Part of the stupidity also involves Janet's action in the mid-credit scenes of "Ant-Man and the Wasp," where she actively helped send Scott into the Quantum Realm to get quantum energy. If she was so afraid of a signal being sent to the QR, she wouldn't have let Scott go without explaining the dangers of going. This film seems to ignore that and instead seems to focus on Janet simply not wanting to discuss her involvement with Kang and her guilt, thinking no one would go back to the QR.
20th May 2023
The Mummy (1999)
Question: What does Colonel O'Connell yell to his Legionnaires in French as the cavalry charge nears? And why does he then continue in English ("Steady, Steady...Fire!").
Answer: He is in the French Foreign Legion, which is a corps in the French army which allows foreigners to sign up. But, it is mostly led by French and a lot of French nationals are still a part of it. So hence why he speaks in multiple languages, being trained by French.
Yes, I know, but what does he yell in French? Does anyone have the text? It's not in the script. Fraser is fluent in French, maybe it was his improvisation. I'd still like to know what he said.
Ah yes, sorry. I was too focussed on the second question. He says "Prenez vos positions." Which means "take your positions!"
19th May 2023
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: Hermione was the one who said that when a werewolf transforms he'd kill his best friend if he saw him, so why did she think she could talk to Lupin after he transformed?
Answer: Hermione was quoting what she knew from reading in text books. Now she was in a precarious real-life situation and she's going to try anything to survive. At first, Lupin (as a werewolf) seems passive and non-dangerous, prompting her to see if she can communicate with him. She quickly realises she's wrong.
I wonder why Lupin can't recognize Hermione while in his werewolf form, but he used to spend time with James, Peter, and Sirius, in their Animagus forms? So he was capable of recognizing friends.
All 3 friends of Remus managed to calm down werewolf Lupin as animagi after a while. But only Sirius wasn't enough apparently, plus it had been decades since they did that.
Totally agree with Lionhead, but would emphasize that Lupin had no control whatsoever over his mind, did not know who he was, nor did he recognize anyone when he transformed into a werewolf. He simply related to James, Sirius, and Pettigrew in their Animagus forms as being other animals who could moderate his behaviour and kept him far away from humans.
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.
26th Feb 2017
Resident Evil (2002)
Corrected entry: We know Alice and Spence are the hive's first defense. So the first thing the queen does after the infection is to knockout and disable her own defenses? That isn't very smart.
Correction: Yes Spence and Alice are part of the defense network of the hive, however they're more directly linked to the safety and security of the installation from outside threats and possibly internal ones. When the Queen enacted her security measures, those measures, knockout chemical, putting Spence and Alice asleep in simply coincidental. Remember that the hive dealing with a very dangerous virus and like all similar installations, real or fiction, the #1 goal is to contain all threats as quickly as possible. Remember that it is spence who stole the virus and purposely set off the events that caused the queen to take the security measures she did. Now maybe, and we're never informed about such, Spence and Alice have been trained about the gas and would have taken measures to avoid being knocked out if it were not for the situations they were in when it happened. Remember Alice was in a shower and Spence was almost back out of the hive facility proper. He even said in the movie something about he thought he could make it out of the hive and the house before the security measures all came about. The Queen was just protecting the installation and reacting with a response level equal to the threat it faced which meant all security measures that were possible to use were done so.
Correcting the correction this isn't just a coincidence they was knocked out with a nerve agent to keep them from investigating why the red queen activated her defenses resulting in them getting infected and letting out the virus the nerve agent was designed to cause short term memory lose so when they woke up hours later they wouldn't remember why they was there and could hold complete deniability if questioned by authority if a team failed their mission and let the virus out anyways in the 4hr.
I don't think the umbrella corporation worries itself with something like plausible deniability. They have full control over the facility, even send their own team. They don't have to answer to other authority.
2nd Apr 2023
Dumb and Dumber (1994)
Corrected entry: Mental (the "Gas Man") assumes Harry and Lloyd are rival criminals who have deduced his identity yet he willingly places himself in their vehicle and doesn't even make an attempt to disguise himself.
Correction: At first they did think that, but once they saw the apartment and their ways (and their dog car) I think they soon realised these guys were not pros.
It wasn't until the diner scene - which takes place after he had been given a lift by Harry and Lloyd - that Mental realised they were just a pair of weirdos with nothing better to do.
That doesn't make sense. That would mean he still thought they knew who he was and were "pros" when he hitched a ride to "get to know them."
13th Jun 2006
Pleasantville (1998)
Question: Wouldn't David & Jennifer's mom be worried about the sudden disappearance of her daughter, seeing as how Jennifer stayed behind in Pleasantville rather than returning to the "real world"?
Answer: We don't see much of the "real world" after David returns other than his conversation with his mother. I am sure in time she would have been worried but there seem to be many unanswered questions which might make it not so simple.
Considering that a couple of days in Pleasantville turned out to be just an hour in the real world, it's possible Jennifer could spend 3-4 years in uni and cone back with it being just a weekend in the real world. David could just make up something in that period she's gone.
Actually if a couple of days is just an hour than 3-4 years is more than 2 weeks.
4th Mar 2016
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Question: This question is about the book and movie. Why does Draco make an offer of friendship to Harry? His parents are on Voldemort's side. His father and his aunt are Death Eaters. Surely he considers Harry to be an enemy. If Harry had actually decided to join him, his family would have been very displeased. They would also suffer consequences if Voldemort returned and heard that Draco was friends with Harry.
Answer: Draco, still a child when he met Harry, would not yet fully comprehend his family's involvement as Death Eaters or Harry's specific connection to the Dark Lord. His father, Lucius, rarely shared important information with his son. Draco was also the type who would ingratiate himself to someone famous for his own benefit. Draco's cultivating a bogus friendship with Harry could actually have been advantageous to the Malfoys by gaining his trust and giving them closer access to Harry for Voldemort's purposes. The old adage, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer," would certainly apply here.
One other possible reason, I think, it was suggested elsewhere, that the Malfoys did not believe that Voldemort would return, and thought that if Harry had defeated him then Harry must be a very powerful wizard and therefore they wanted to be his friend.
This indeed. This was cut from the movies (it's in one deleted CoS scene), but some people including the Malfoys wondered if Harry "defeated" Voledmort because he was another powerful, dark wizard Voldemort didn't want as a competition. That would make him very appealing to the Malfoys before it is confirmed otherwise. Especially since no-one aside from a few people knew Voldemort would ever come back.
Harry was only a baby when he "defeated" Voldemort though. Why would anyone think he was a powerful dark wizard and competition to Voldemort? I get that they might think Harry has some sort of hidden ability that caused him to vanquish Voldemort, but not that being the reason Voldemort tried to kill him. Everyone knew who Harry's parents were, and that's why he was a target.
26th Mar 2023
General questions
Is there a movie/show in which a male character says "Hey, it's me. You're probably wondering how I ended up in this situation"? I've watched a couple of Instagram videos that had this quote.
Answer: It's a common trope, taking various forms. Seemingly the first occurrence of this specific type of voiceover/flashback is from Sunset Boulevard (1950), starting with someone dead in a pool, and the dead character is the one who takes us back to show us what led to that situation.
Yep. Various films start with something similar, like start of the movie Ratatouille (2007), the movie Holes (2003), The Emperor's New Groove (2000), Spiderman (2002) and most episode intros of My name is Earl (2005-2009). None actually use that exact sentence though.
23rd Jul 2022
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)
Question: Troops were sent to check out the mysterious toxic stuff in the centre of the space city but none returned (as mentioned by Clive Owen). Later it is discovered there is no toxicity. It seems extremely out of character for the pearls to have killed a whole unit of soldiers. This plot point was never explained. Were they killed by the pearls?
Answer: It is never answered, but it's safe to assume the commander has been killing the teams with his guard robots.
Thats nonsense because the commander didn't know the pearls were there so no reason to kill the teams. It was classified toxic because nobody returned, possibly incapacitated by the pearls to avoid discovery but not killed.
25th Mar 2018
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: I've heard that Lucius was right in Voldemort's inner circle so why is he treated even worse than Pettigrew?
Answer: In addition, Lucius is directly responsible for the destruction of his first horcrux, the diary, for the frivolous reason of trying to discredit Arthur Weasley.
Voldemort was angry with Lucius because he repeatedly failed him. Lucius smuggled the Diary Horcrux into Hogwarts via Ginny, the plan failed. Lucius also failed to retrieve the prophecy orb from the Ministry of Magic, resulting in a huge battle and certain Death Eaters being sent to Azkaban prison. Voldemort usually severely punished anyone who failed him.
Except Voldemort was still in hiding in Albania when Lucius did this. He never told Lucius to give it to Ginny.
Lucius took advantage of an opportunity to use Ginny to get the Diary into Hogwarts rather than as an act to discredit Arthur. He couldn't risk giving it to Draco, who he would not have trusted to carry out the mission.
Except that Lucius putting Tom Riddles' diary into Ginny's cauldron happened in "The Chamber Of Secrets." Not in this movie. The question was why Voldemort treated Lucius even worse then Pettigrew.
It might have happened in an earlier movie, but that doesn't mean Voldemort forgot.
3rd Jun 2004
Star Wars (1977)
Question: While perusing an art book on this movie I came across several foreign movie posters where the Death Star is shown with the laser dish in the southern hemisphere rather than the northern (almost as if it were upside down). Anyone know why this is?
Answer: Judging from the movies, the laser doesn't seem to have much of an aiming system so the whole Death Star might need to rotate so the dish faces its target and in some cases this could mean needing to be "upside down". Just a hunch.
Wouldn't an upside-down Death Star be problematic for the countless amount of Stormtroopers, Imperial officers etc. on it?
No more than for any other large planetary body. Either artificial gravity or it's large enough to create its own.
No, as demonstrated on the Millennium Falcon and star destroyers, the Star Wars universe has some form of artificial gravity.
It's space, there is no up direction.
When there is gravity, there is an up and down. I think in terms of spaceships north is usually taken as up and south as down, relative to an astronomical body. But only because most maps are made that way. Determining an up and down helps with a sense of direction.
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.
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.