Blibbetyblip

Question: This applies to all the movies and books. Why is Dumbledore the only one Voldemort ever feared?

Blibbetyblip

Chosen answer: Because Dumbledore is extremely powerful and utterly unintimidated by Voldemort. Voldemort, while extremely powerful himself, relies on fear to weaken any opposition to him - through fear, he gains a measure of control. Dumbledore, who has no fear of his ex-student, stands as a strong opponent who cannot be weakened through psychological tactic - as such, Voldemort fears him.

Tailkinker Premium member

Answer: In addition, Dumbledore has a reputation of defeating powerful dark wizards, such as his defeat of Grindelwald, who yielded the elder wand.

Question: I recently bought the Extended DVD of this movie and sold the Theatrical version to a friend. While watching the Extended DVD I couldn't help noticing that the jug that Pippin replaces the Palantir with (while Gandalf is sleeping with his eyes open) did not seem like the same jug as the one in the Theatrical version. Are they the same jug?

Blibbetyblip

Chosen answer: There is absolutely no reason to believe it is not the same, the costs to change this would be prohibitive and there is no reasonable need to have done so.

OneHappyHusky

Question: Hagrid was expelled from Hogwart's because he was believed to have opened the Chamber of Secrets. He was stripped of his wand at the same time. Why then, after he is proved innocent of opening the Chamber, is he not given another wand?

Blibbetyblip

Chosen answer: Hagrid apparently still has his old wand that he keeps hidden within his umbrella. That is how he gave Harry's cousin Dudley a tail in "Philosopher's Stone". Also, now that Hagrid has been exonerated, he is free to obtain a new wand if he so wishes.

raywest Premium member

Question: What happens to Arwen in the end? Does she die like a human, remain in Middle Earth forever (as Elrond predicted she would) or travel to the Undying Lands after the other elves?

Blibbetyblip

Chosen answer: She dies as a human. In order to marry Aragorn, she had to give up her immortality. In "Fellowship," she tells Aragorn that she would rather live a mortal life with him than live forever without him.

Cubs Fan Premium member

Question: I am confused about the battle of Osgiliath. Are there orcs attacking the city, or just the Nazgul? Also, how many Nazgul are there (just the one we see or more)? When Faramir shows Frodo the way out through the sewers (Extended DVD) have the Gondorians won the battle or is it still going? And last of all, is the battle of Osgiliath in the third movie (where the orcs are coming in on rafts) a continuation of this battle, or are the orcs seen in the third movie reinforcements?

Blibbetyblip

Chosen answer: Osgiliath is under attack from an army consisting mainly of Orcs, but with at least one member (probably more) of the nine Nazgul operating from time to time in the air. In the final film, Osgiliath is still under siege, but the newcomers on the rafts represent major reinforcements, more than enough to take the city before continuing on to Minas Tirith. At this point, Sauron has committed to a major offensive, so all nine Nazgul are in the fray along with his huge army of Orcs, Trolls, Mumakil and so on.

Tailkinker Premium member

Question: How did Gollum know Bilbo's name and where he lived ("Shire! Baggins!") when Bilbo just picked up the ring in Gollum's cave? In "The Hobbit" Bilbo meets Gollum, they talk (Bilbo reveals his name and where he lives), and then Bilbo takes the ring after playing a game of riddles with him. Are we to presume that the game of riddles has taken place when Bilbo finds the ring in this movie?

Blibbetyblip

Chosen answer: Bilbo finding the Ring in "The Fellowship" movie is a flashback to happenings from "The Hobbit." Bilbo actually found the Ring and had the riddle game with Gollum about 50 years prior to the happenings in "The Fellowship". Therefore, Bilbo didn't actually find the Ring in "The Fellowship of the Ring" story.

Zwn Annwn

Question: Are Indiana Jones and his father immortal at the end of the movie or does the grail's power become null and void when it crosses the seal? The knight said something like "The grail cannot cross the seal, that is the price of immortality." That makes it sound like they are not immortal at the end but I still want to check.

Blibbetyblip

Chosen answer: They're not, no. An individual doesn't become immortal after one drink - it requires them to drink regularly in order to remain alive. So neither Jones has been rendered immortal, merely healed of any wounds that they might have. But your surmise is basically correct - as the Grail cannot leave the shrine, any individual wishing to use it to prolong their life must stay there if they wish to enjoy its effects.

Tailkinker Premium member

Also, in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull, Henry Jones, Sr has passed away before the start of the story and therefore was not immortal.

raywest Premium member

Question: On the 2nd Disc, there is an interview with director Alfonso Cuaron and J.K. Rowling. In the interview, Rowling states that Cuaron unknowingly put some clues in the movie that foreshadow events that happen in books 6 an 7. I have read books 6 and 7 and I re-watched the movie, but I still have no idea what clues Rowling was referring to. Could someone please fill me in?

Blibbetyblip

Chosen answer: Semi-spoilers, but just a few things that I noticed: Lupin speaking about Lily, saying that she saw the good in anyone, Hermione and Ron's little "moments" which were much more plentiful than in the 3rd book, and Snape protecting Harry from the werewolf when he could have run. I'm sure there might be more, but also keep in mind that between the making of this movie and the release of the final books, JKR did change/edit several things so some "clues" might foreshadow things that never made it into the books.

Question: This applies to the movie and the book. Is there any reason why somebody can't go back in time using a Time Turner and save all those people that Voldemort killed or perhaps kill the child Voldemort? It seems like such a big plot hole so I had to check before I submitted it as a mistake.

Blibbetyblip

Answer: According to the Harry Potter Wikia, someone using a Time Turner can only stay in the past for five hours at a time, to avoid doing irreparable damage to the timeline or the time traveler themselves.

Chosen answer: To change time, even with good intentions, would be to break one of the most important wizarding laws. Hermione was only allowed access to a Time Turner under very carefully controlled conditions; Professor McGonagall had to write many letters to the Ministry on her behalf and, according to Hermione, told her a number of stories about occasions when wizards had attempted to alter time with horrific consequences. Going back to kill the infant Voldemort would simply not be an option.

Tailkinker Premium member

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.