Question: Throughout the whole movie, why does Jasmine have such hostility toward Jafar? The scene where Aladdin was captured by the guards on Jafar's orders, she seems angry that Jafar had a stranger taken from the market place. In the scene of Jasmine's and Jafar's first appearance together, she confronts him angrily asking Jafar about the arrest. When his reply was justifiable she is still upset with him. And in the scene where the Sultan, Jafar, and Jasmine are all in the room discussing the incident, Jasmine says she wants to get rid of Jafar. (00:23:20 - 00:41:15)
lionhead
19th Feb 2013
Aladdin (1992)
Answer: Also, Jasmine reveals in that first scene that Aladdin's arrest wasn't justifiable. Jafar told her he had him arrested for kidnapping her, to which Jasmine reveals that he didn't kidnap her; she ran away. Then Jafar reveals that he had Aladdin executed, which can seemingly only be done upon approval from the sultan. Jasmine loathes him so much because he allowed for the death of an innocent boy without checking with anyone first.
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.
28th Jun 2004
Aliens (1986)
Question: If the company knew about the Aliens from the start and coveted them as a bioweapon, why did it take 57 years and the reappearance of Ripley for someone from the company to make another effort to get one? In the intervening 57 years, wouldn't the company have sent someone out to the derelict spaceship wreckage?
Answer: The company doesn't wait 57 years, they built a colony on the planet over 20 years prior to finding Ripley. The company was apparently unaware of the exact location of the derelict spacecraft. After finding Ripley and obtaining information from her, Burke was able to send the Jorden family to the precise location of the derelict spacecraft.
Answer: For me anyway, the company doesn't seem to be as hostile as they do in Alien. Won't surprise me that in 57 years there has been a change in leadership and they are no longer interested in capturing the alien, Burke seems to operating on his own. Minor plot hole ultimately.
I think the original answer is right and they simply didn't know where the crashed ship was located on the planet since the beacon was deactivated and all information was on the Nostromo and with Ripley. They built a colony there to find it eventually, just takes a long time. Until they got lucky and found Ripley. Burke is definitely not working on his own though, they still knew about the aliens and the original idea still remained, capture aliens and bring them back to study.
Yes that's right, because when Ripley has a run in with Burke he says that this specimen is worth millions to the bio weapons division and if we bring it back we will be made for life.
20th Apr 2019
Thor: The Dark World (2013)
15th Apr 2019
Thirteen Ghosts (2001)
Question: Considering how varied their backstories were, it's hard to say how evil some were. Who is the most evil ghost?
Answer: The Jackal is bad, as a sadistic rapist and murderer, but he also recognized this in himself and had himself committed for treatment. When his asylum burned down, he intentionally chose to stay behind. I'd say the worst is the Juggernaut, an unrepentant serial killer.
The Bound Woman wasn't much better. She never killed anyone, but she also was an abusive jerk who got killed by an ex. In the film she lures Bobby down where there is grave danger and she thinks it's funny, much to the chagrin of the wife of the family.
Answer: Well it's mentioned the jackal is the Charles Manson of the ghosts. I'd say that's he most evil one, probably the most angry one.
How evil is the Great Child and Dire Mother? The first committed a massacre but was also trying to do the right thing and was severely handicapped; the latter helped raise her son horribly but also suffered from a lot of mental and emotional issues like PTSD it seems.
They aren't half as bad as the jackal. They are both estranged, traumatized, angry ghosts but not necessarily evil. These ghosts are together for the fact they have had bad experiences, either self made or happened to them, not because they are bad themselves. In order to understand it more there should be more information about the book and ritual they are involved in.
What about the Juggernaut?
Well that one killed Dennis along with The Hammer. I'd say that one is pretty evil, also considering his history of being a serial killer before his death. Not as maniacal as the Jackal though.
Good thing you mention the Hammer. I don't think he's really evil, misguided yea but he seems to be after the ones responsible for the evil plan which involved him being trapped. We see he seems calm towards Maggie. In life he was an honorable person who only killed his families' murderers and the law was corrupted, hence why he was brutally killed but not the higher ups responsible for his families' death.
Basically the Angry Princess was tragic, Great Child excusable because of mental handicaps and good intentions, Hammer is justified, Jackal and Juggernaut are unexcused, though some sympathy for them because they went insane.
I actually think it's the Juggernaut, as even the Jackal showed remorse for his crimes while he was alive. While the Juggernaut was just a murderer who only stopped because he was shot down by police.
21st Jun 2004
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Question: Did Jesus really invent the table? I don't remember that in the Bible.
Answer: Um, no, he didn't. The Egyptians had tables (that wouldn't look that out of place in a modern house) around 2000 years before the birth of Christ.
Answer: I believe Jesus was just helping his Father Joseph who was a carpenter.
23rd Apr 2009
Jurassic Park (1993)
Question: Wouldn't John Hammond be just a little bit worried at how animal rights activists may react to his park feeding live animals (like goats and cows) to the dinosaurs, and the damage it could do to the park's future?
Chosen answer: There are several factors to consider. First, zoos do feed live food to some exhibit animals that will not otherwise eat, like feeding live mice to some types of reptiles. Also, Jurassic Park is still top secret and is not yet open to the public, and therefore Hammond and the staff are, at this point, unconcerned about that and may change their practices later. Another consideration is that the park is in a foreign country that may have less stringent rules and regulations regarding zoo and aquarium practices; Hammond is likely paying them well to establish his park there and is bringing in tourism dollars. Finally, Hammond simply may be unconcerned about it, convinced that his fantastic park will be such a huge success and public demand to see the dinosaurs so great that it will overrule objections by animal rights groups.
Answer: In Jurassic World they still use animals so this isn't a concern.
What happens in a later movie is irrelevant to the question.
14th Apr 2019
Thirteen Ghosts (2001)
Question: After Cyrus dies, why don't the ghosts turn on the others, such as Arthur who is nearby them? A couple of ghosts such as the Torso and Withered Lover didn't kill Cyrus and are more or less harmless, but some of the bad ones like the Juggernaut, Hammer and Jackal did. Was this a minor overlook?
Answer: The ghosts are not stupid; they were trapped inside that house by Cyrus. They just punished him for that and then they leave. They have no quarrel with Arthur or the others, probably even realizing they were freed by them.
I do remember the Angry Princess wanted to stab a couple of the ladies, and the Jackal was pure insanity, but with those two they could simply have been tired of the whole mess. We see just before they cross over that the Jackal was howling with laughter.
They were really pissed off being trapped in that house, and not really rational thinking people, being ghosts and all. Anyone alive would be a potential target as long as they are trapped.
25th Apr 2004
Thirteen Ghosts (2001)
Question: I was just wondering, why isn't Jean violent? The psychic said that all the ghosts are violent because they died a violent death and that's why Cyrus wanted them, so why is she the only one who isn't violent?
Answer: She didn't die a violent death. Jean is the Withered Lover, meaning that she died after a long, wasting illness. This is the only ghost that is not violent, because the pain it causes is emotional, not physical.
Except Jean didn't die from an illness but was instead killed in a fire, hence the burns on her body.
Could be since Jean died as a result of saving her family and was an accident, she isn't that bad. We can tell this makes sense with some other ghosts: the kid with an arrow was an accidental death, the handicapped man was protecting his mom, and that mom was meek and calm in life and was quickly killed anyhow. The two that avert this trend are the torso, who was brutally killed though is more or less harmless, and the bound woman who was a jerk but quickly killed as well, and lifts Cyrus to his death.
Wasn't the Torso a harmless ghost? We never see it attack anyone, and when Bobby runs off scared it is because the torso is moving to the head which happens to be near Bobby. Then we don't see the Torso lift Cyrus and to help matters the Withered Lover is seen standing on the Torso's place at the end.
Answer: For that matter the Dire Mother didn't die a painful death either, she just died of suffocation. Her mentally disabled son did, though.
The dire mother was kidnapped and put in a sack. I'd say that's a violent death.
Well, somewhat. But not nearly as bad as most of the other ghosts. Except for the First Born Son who was instantly and quickly killed by accident.
27th Jun 2011
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Corrected entry: In the scene when Jimmy Dolittle is standing on the carrier talking to Rafe about the reason for the Raid there is no wind. This is impossible as the Hornet was steaming at over 30 Knots which means there would have been a wind of over 30 miles an hour going across the deck and it would have been heaving up and down as the seas were rough for the trip.
Correction: The carrier would be sailing into the wind as the B25s would be taking off soon.
When they actually launched they were still 10 hours away from actual take off, they didn't go against the wind yet. They had to do that the moment the decision was made to launch.
Correction: This phenomenon is called 'apparent wind'. If they are traveling the same direction as the wind at roughly the same speed, they would not feel the wind.
For this to happen, the wind would have to only come from one direction. The wind doesn't stay in the same direction for any length of time, especially when it is blowing at 30 knots.
Correction: Firstly, there is definitely wind, their jackets are all bulged up. Secondly, the trip took 2 weeks. It wasn't bad weather the entire way and they were talking about the medals days before April 18th when the weather was rougher. They intentionally did the operation before the end of April when the weather was going to turn bad.
15th Mar 2019
The Patriot (2000)
Corrected entry: When Benjamin Martin meets with Cornwallis about the prisoner exchange and brings the dogs in (Great Danes or otherwise), Cornwallis refers to them as "boys." The black dog is female.
Correction: "Boy" for dogs is gender neutral. A lot of owners of female dogs call it a boy. Certainly with 2 dogs you'd never say "come boy and girl."
I have 3 dogs, 1 male, 2 female. No one in the family calls them boys. Sorry but I don't buy that explanation. I think it was just a miss.
1 example, an example where the females are the majority. Not really a good example I'd say. Again, "boys" is gender neutral. Also, he says it once, just once. Are you saying it is not possible for someone to call a male and female dog "boys"? It's not a movie mistake.
It is entirely possible that the film-makers chose to have a female dog play a male dog. For example, in the TV show Lassie, Lassie is played by a male collie even though it is well-established that Lassie is a female. A more recent example is the reverse, where on the CBS show Seal Team, there is a dog on there named Cerberus who is male, but is in fact played by a female named Dita.
It should be noted that people have submitted mistakes for the wrong sexed animal being used (i.e. a male dog playing a female). But really to be considered a character mistake, it would have to be out of character for the person calling a female (or male) animal "boy" (or "girl"). Calling a male and female dog "boys" doesn't seem out of character enough to be a mistake.
15th Mar 2019
The Green Mile (1999)
Question: Paul lived to be an old old man because John touched him. Did Melinda live to be an old women since John healed her of cancer? Nothing was ever said about her but Mr. Jingles lived to be an old mouse.
Answer: John Coffey only transferred "a piece of myself [himself]" to Paul, intentionally and Mr. Jingles, unintentionally. Paul didn't have that power after John cured his UTI and Mr. Jingles didn't have it after John cured him from the attack by Percy. The movie is very clear about that.
Answer: Actually, Paul does mention Melinda as one of the people he has lost along the way. No mention is made of how long she lived, but I would assume that John simply cured her tumor, and she lived the rest of her life as a normal woman.
Answer: Yes she lived for very long and ailment free. But you gotta know Elaine was already much older than Paul was, so even though she lived very long, Paul outlived her. He specifically mentioned her, saying something in the lines of "eventually I even outlived Elaine."
I think you are confusing Melinda and Elaine. Elaine is the woman Paul is recounting his story to, she is considerably younger than him and yet he outlives her. Melinda is the wife of the warden who John Coffey heals. It is not said how long she lives but since Paul specifically mentions his long life being a curse for his role in John's execution, we can assume she was not particularly long lived as he was.
Yes, of course. Melinda. I got the idea that the people who John Coffey heals have long life without ailments. Paul and the mouse are the living proof of that, so why not Melinda? I meant to say Melinda was I think already older than Paul when she was healed by Coffey (although the actress was 40 when this film was made) and thus her life was extended, but less so. She may have died even after Paul's wife, even though he mentions her first. It's still probably been a while though.
Melinda's fate after John heals her is never mentioned. Paul believes he has been cursed with long life as punishment for his role in John's execution. That to me indicates that Melinda didn't live a particularly long life. If she had Paul would have no reason to believe he was being punished.
Besides Mr. Jingles.
Paul mentions Melinda by name when recounting the people that he lost along the way. "Hal and Melinda" are the first names he mentions.
Answer: It would appear, based on what Paul says, that only he and Mr. Jingles were gifted (cursed?) with long life. Paul specifically mentions outliving his family and friends and is shown outliving Elaine as well. Paul speculates that his long life is punishment for his role in executing John, but he says nothing of why Mr. Jingles lives for so long.
Paul says that he believed that what happened to Mr. Jingles was an accident. Meaning he was never supposed to have a long life but, during Del's execution, a small bit of John's healing power accidentally went into Mr. Jingles.
20th Feb 2018
The Thing (1982)
Corrected entry: The big burly guy with the sweater has a heart attack. When his chest is opened it is soon discovered that he has been assimilated, meaning he was no longer human at that point and would not have had a heart attack.
Correction: The alien entity imitating Vance Norris is faking a heart attack. Vance Norris was replaced by the alien a long time ago.
He definitely isn't faking. He winces from chest pains while he is in a room all by himself, just after he looks out the window and yells "Hey you guys! Come here!" The implication is, like Blair said, when the thing takes over someone it copies them perfectly and also copied Norris' bad heart. It also wouldn't make any sense for him to fake a heart attack at that moment because it caused him to reveal himself to everyone all at once and be killed.
It doesn't take over their bad traits, no need to do that, every single cell of the organism has its own sense of survival, a heart attack wouldn't threaten it. It did fake a heart attack, it's not human, it doesn't use a heart. MacReady was becoming a threat to its survival with the dynamite - the thing wanted to create chaos, and in that way kill them all and eliminate the threat. It lured people close, like the doctor, so he could attack. Besides, it had already copied itself, it was also Palmer.
The chest pains started before Macready came into the building. He definitely wasn't faking a heart attack, he was actually having one. The creature makes a perfect copy of the organism it takes over and because Norris had a bad heart, it also had a bad heart. The creature only reveals itself when it's alone or it has to defend itself. Because the doctor was hurting it with the defibrillator, it was forced to reveal itself.
So you are saying that if the creature had a heart attack alone in a room it would actually die? Why would an actual heart attack threaten a thing that is made up of individual cells that have their own survival instincts? This fact was only revealed after the incident. No, the heart attack wasn't real, it isn't human.
No, I'm not saying the creature would or even could die of a heart attack. I'm saying that the heart attack wasn't faked because the creature made a perfect copy of Norris, including his bad heart. This is all explained after the dog-thing is examined. It has internal organs that look and work just like the creatures it copies. It wouldn't need to fake a heart attack to get people to come closer to it anyway. It can just walk up to anybody it wants to attack. For the entire movie, the creature lies in wait, attacking one person at a time unless it absolutely has no other choice but to defend itself.
I know it's the official explanation given, but I just don't buy it the creature would fail its hidden state so utterly by going into cardiac arrest and drawing attention to itself like that even though every single cell has it own survival instincts. I still say it was the threat of the dynamite, to create confusion. They do think individually or else the dynamite would have worked in it's favor even. It just panicked and did it on purpose.
I think what the movie is saying is that even though each individual cell wants to protect itself, it's still beholden to what particular type of cell it is. So if it's a copy of an eye cell of someone who has bad eyesight, the thing will still have bad eyesight. It didn't know anything about the dynamite when it started having chest pains, that was before Macready even came in.
9th May 2007
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Corrected entry: There's a shot of a jet crashed in the mud on the shore of the Nung River in a classic scene as the PBR sails underneath it. This makes for a great shot and may be the way WWII airplanes crashed, but it's not the way B52's crash. At the rates of speed and high altitudes they fly a jet aiming down at the ground like that would be in a million pieces and not sticking up in the mud. Even if the tail section were blown off it wouldn't crash this way and that's why there are absolutely no pictures of a Viet Nam combat era B52's tail section that has crashed in this way. (01:54:35)
Correction: The crash site wreckage you see is entirely typical of a low-level event such as an attempted emergency landing. The tail of an airliner or heavy bomber is often the only piece of piece of wreckage left after such an incident.
Correction: Just FYI, the first loss of a B-52 was 11-22-72 during Operation Linebacker II. The movie, most likely, takes place about August/September 1969.
Making this an entirely different type of error. The correction is right in terms of the state and disposition of the wreckage, but the fact that the wreckage shouldn't even be there in the first place doesn't invalidate that. Maybe you should post it as a factual error?
In 22 November 1972 it was the first shot down, not lost. First B-52 lost in the Vietnam war was June 18 1965, from colliding with another B-52. In total 11 B-52's were lost from accidents, the crashed one we see in the movie could be one of those.
First crash was a collision in June 1965. First one shot down was in Linebacker 2.
Not entirely true: A B52 was lost taking off from Andersen Guam going to Vietnam in 1969. The wing broke off on take off. Structural failure. Wreckage went in the water. Deep water.
28th Feb 2019
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Other mistake: While Harry and his classmates are on their way up to Gryffindor Tower right after the Sorting, Neville reacts with astonishment to a portrait moving. However, we learn in later films that Neville was raised in a magical household (by his grandmother), so he should have been completely accustomed to seeing pictures move. (00:46:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not every magic household has moving pictures in the house.
No, but being raised in the magical world he will have come across moving portraits. A good example (tho not explained until book 5) is at St Mungo's. He visits his parents regularly. The hospital has portraits there that would move. Thus seeing the one move at Hogwarts shouldn't have startled him.
I am now doubting it's Neville who is saying it. Can't be sure it's his voice. It can also be he is mentioning they are portraits, not photographs that are moving. Maybe moving paintings are rarer.
21st Feb 2019
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: I don't quite understand how Harry beat that monster book?
Answer: If you mean how he got it back under control, he lured it out from under his bed and then stepped on it. He was then able to put the binding back on. The book stops moving if the binding is around it.
No I meant how did he lure it out. I don't get how that works.
The book isn't a very smart creature. No reason for attacking is given so it probably attacks anything that is in front of it, too close maybe, or anything that moves. Like a shoe.
10th Aug 2008
The Mummy (1999)
Corrected entry: There was no solar eclipse visible anywhere near the Middle East in 1923.
Correction: The eclipse was caused because Imhotep was regenerating. An event that happens in a fantasy, as a result of a fictional character's actions, cannot be considered a factual error.
Correction: "Magically" creating a solar eclipse would mean altering the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun. The earthquakes would be beyond imagination and the resulting tsunamis and devastating climate changes would wipe out the few survivors. Some things are beyond magic. This is one of them.
But using magic he could "easily" (at least judging by his powers in this film) cast a shadow over the sun - it doesn't have to be the moon. Especially given that the sun stays dark for a while, whereas natural eclipses are over quite quickly.
Actually creating a solar eclipse would require moving the moon, not the Earth. It's not "beyond magic", magic is magic.
Correction: The ancient Egyptians worshipped the Sun as their ultimate god, Ra. Given that their "magic" seemed to function remarkably well (well enough to resurrect desiccated mummies after 3000 years, anyway), there's a slight chance that the ancient Egyptians were slightly more in touch with the magic of celestial mechanics than we are today with our dogmatic Science. I mean, if it happened that they were correct about the Sun being a God, then perhaps they were knowledgeable in summoning the Sun's cooperation in their magical endeavors.
6th Feb 2019
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Question: Aunt May subtly reveals, or at least implies, she knows Peter is Spider-Man when she's moving. Does she know in the comics? Because I remember in the comics she does not seem to like Spider-Man at all?
Answer: In the main Marvel continuity Aunt May does eventually find out that Peter is Spider-Man. Her memory is wiped of this knowledge later on.
Answer: In Amazing Spider-Man Vol 2. Number 35 Aunt May permanently finds out about Peter's secret identity and knows from then on.
That gets changed later on. Not sure which issue but it's after Civil War, she has her mind wiped after Peter gives her radioactive blood to save her life. I'm not entirely sure if that too is eventually changed but from what I remember Aunt May hasn't known his identity since Civil War.
Yeah it does switch around a lot. Dr. Strange made it so nobody will find out unless he wants them to. I suppose Aunt May doesn't know anymore then.
Keeping up with comic book continuity is an absolute nightmare.
I couldn't agree more. I've always wished for some kind of easy, interactive overview of what I was reading. I've actually given up on comics because of the hellish chronology. Well, except Judge Dredd which is pretty straight forward.
14th Jun 2007
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Question: Did Davey Jones corrupt his purpose? Is that why he turned out the way he did? His purpose was to ferry souls to the next world, was he not properly doing that?
Answer: Pretty much, yes. He carried out his duties faithfully for the first ten years, then returned to shore, to find Calypso missing. After that, he refused to continue, leading to his current state.
Answer: Like all pirates, he double crossed her. He seduced and captured her in human form, by controlling her he could control the seas. She in turn double crossed him cursing him to the Flying Dutchman.
That's not what happened at all.
It was the Brethern Court that did that I believe.
1st Feb 2019
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: During one scene in 1955, Marty mentions John F. Kennedy, and nobody has any idea who he's talking about. Would Kennedy really have been a totally unfamiliar name to most Americans in 1955? True, he wasn't President yet, but he was a popular Democratic senator from a prominent family.
Answer: He was both a war hero and a senator, but unless Lorraine's father followed politics closely he might not have recognized the name, especially since Kennedy wasn't a senator for their state.
Plus it would be unheard of to name a street after a living politician from across the country.
Answer: Keep in mind, there was no TV news in that house (they just got a TV). And I don't see the dad being one to read any further than the sports page, or listen to anything but comedy on the radio.
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.
Answer: Because Jasmine sees Jafar for what he is; a lying, manipulative, power-hungry villain.
Phixius ★