In the movie The Neverending Story Sabastian yells out a name for the empress.  Can anyone tell me what that name is? I grew up watching this movie. I am now 30 years old and I still can not figure out what the name was that he called out.  Please help me put this almost 20 year mystery to rest.
126496
omg! i've been trying to figure it out for years! captions and subtitles dont work on that movie.\n\n\nwait, didnt he say he was going to give her his mother's name? so are you saying his mother was named moonchild? or is it some joke im just totally not getting? (im notorious for that)
306036
Wow! Add one more Q. Who was the father of Zevedeos' children? (For some it may be confusing to answer).\n\nKaterina
307370
Just for the record, there are three sequels to 2001 which may help you understand the original story. 2010 was made into a film, while 2061 and 3001 are only in book form.\n\nThat said, I have to agree with Brent the monolith is either a physical form for something it would be difficult for humanity to imagine, or a tool used by that force. \n\nIn the film it's made obvious the monolith influenced the ape people, prompting the creation of tools and weapons.  Years later, another monolith is discovered buried in the moon sending signals to Jupiter. Once again, humanity is prompted to take the another step and travel to the stars to find out what it means.\n\nThe trip Dave goes on is simply called the "stargate" - a passage from Jupiter to somewhere else where he lives out the rest of his life. The fetus is the 'starchild'...Dave reborn as the next evolution of humanity. \n\nDave/Starchild show up again in 2010 as a group of US and Russian scientists attempt to discover what happened to Discovery and her crew.
488458
Yes, the book was really good. I'm not sure about the movie, though. I'm going to see it, definitely, but certain things I'm dubious about. Such as the burn mark on Eragon's palm. In the book, the Riders are sometimes called 'Argetlam' which in the ancient language, literally means silver palm. Arget means silver. In the book, the silver mark of the Riders is from touching their dragon. In the movie (as far as I could tell, anyway), the burn mark is swirled in the shape of a lower case E, but does not appear to be silver. If Hollywood changed that, what other things have they changed?
414343
Well, what people are saying with the whole ending thing is that, Eureka and Rentin stayed away from society for one year before coming back home to Bellforest. (My thoery is they landed after falling from space in some desolate place far from home and they had to WALK back and it took a year :D) \n\nIn the very last frame of the last episode you see a picture of Eureka, Renton, the children, and Axel Thurston together.\n\nI really have no idea if there is going to be a sequel or movie, but the cover of DVD 13, the last DVD, maybe hints it...?\n(you can see the cover of DVD Vol. 13 on the japanese site, PROJECT EUREKA)\n\nGood Luck to both of us on that!
286153
Here is everything you want to know about male and female orcs.  (And a lot of stuff you probably DONT' want to know!)\n\nSorry, I couldn't find the film or scene for you.  Hope someone else does.
606563
I think they were killed in the flood, but have you ever read (I think) in Job about the leviathan?  Sounds so much like a brontesaurus or dipladucas doesn't it?  People try to say it's a croc, but it's  nothing like a crocodile.  Also Psalms 74 says He lopped off the heads (plural) of leviathan, and made mincemeat of the dragon.  I'm not trying to make people believe anything, it's just one of the things I wonder.
41016
Hmmm.  Fair enough question, but I really don't know the answer.  I'm a serious Apes lover, but this didn't make sense.  I think they were trying to somehow make it a more Boulle-like ending, but I think it failed dismally.  \n\nI'm guessing that what happened is that Thade took another pod from the Oberon and used that to travel back to the past.  Because of the "bend in time" he ended up landing on the planet hundreds of years BEFORE Leo Davidson.  It follows the same scheme (a bend in time) as the trip that Leo and Pericles took in the beginning of the film.  \n\nWhatever.  It was a good try at a reimaging, but Planet of the Apes 2001 just doesn't play as well with me as the original (1968) Planet of the Apes.\n\nJust before you choose an Answerer, why not write your opinion as an update to your question.  I'd love to read it.
355733
I could never figure out how Cain found his wife.  When I read it he was the only one left after he killed Abel, not counting Adam and Eve.   Seth was born later, so then there would have been Adam and Eve, Cain and little brother Seth, and, of course, dead Abel. So where in hell did Cain find his wife...??\n\nI've been stressing out on this for years.
95986
Not Advil, Nuprin! (poorly working headache medicine). I refuse to believe that I'm the oldest person who knows what "Little, yellow, different" refers to.  It was one of the worst ad campaings of all time.  It warranted being mocked in the "Wayne's World" movie...hence, it really warranted being mocked. It's been quite a while since I've read an X-Force comic, but at least that's the origin of "Little, yellow, different."
424167
Had a look on the commentry of the film and they just say, 'some people ask, who is he talking about?'  on the part where the little man (tollouse) crys, but do not explain why. Maybe it's just artistic, as it makes you think there is bad things to come in the film, as we have just seen a very colourful energetic development of love, to a loney small man dressed as a clown, but is not colourful at all underneath dispite apperances especially when in company. There is a scene later on in the film where Christian has been thrown out of the Moulin Rouge, and as Christian is helped into bed, tolousse explains that 'things aren't always as they seem' and although others see him as a drunken gnome deep down he believes in art art and love.  \nIn answer to your question I  think it shows him crying because things aren't always as they seem.\nHope this helps!
488244
I, too, felt a bit confused when I left the theatre. But after I took some time to think about it, I began to understand it better. I am by no means saying I understand it fully now, but here's my current take on the film:\n\nThis film cannot be taken literally, and Darren Aronofsky did not intend for there to be a lot of simple, straightforward, closed answers. Several parts are there for the audience members to make his/her own conclusions.\n\nI think that the only real timeline in the story is the present day one. The other two are Tommy's thoughts/fantasies as ways to deal with Izzi's nearing death. The 16th century timeline can be viewed as Izzi's book, or Tommy's fantasy of himself on a quest for immortality, or both. The 26th century timeline can be viewed as another of Tommy's fantasies of himself searching for immortality. He imagines himself bringing the Tree of Life to the Mayans' Underworld so Izzi can be alive again. The 16th century timeline is more simple fantasy, while in the 26th century timeline he also sorts out his thoughts and fears. It is in this timeline, or during these thoughts, that Tommy comes to terms with death, thus setting in motion the last 5-10 minutes of the film in which he "finishes it": he finishes Izzi's 16th century story as well as the other two timelines in a way that he accepts death and discovers rebirth.\n\nMy take on the Mayan's First Father reference (First Father being the person Izzi pointed out to Tommy in the museum) is that the First Father understood death and rebirth, even if Thomas (the 16th century Hugh Jackman) didn't. The result is Thomas being unable to use the Tree's sap to live forever--because immortality is not meant to be-- and the rebirth is symbolized in his sprouting flowers. The understanding of death and rebirth is shown in Tom-- a character who is separate and yet the same person as Tommy and Thomas-- when he nears the dying star: the tree flowers to life and dying, self-sacrificing Tom is shown with back arched, limbs outward in the same position as the First Father in the museum.\n\nBut even all that is taking the film too literally. I came to understand all this after the film was over, and yet, while I was watching the film, the most important element of the film still came through: the themes of love, life, death, and rebirth, and the message that we must accept these these things. Tommy could not accept death, and yet Izzi neared death with such grace. But finally Tommy, visiting Izzi's grave with a smile on his face, accepted death. For me, this all came though while I was watching the film, and that turned out to still be the most important part once I fit together some of the details.\n\nPlus, confusing plot aside, the film was absolutely beautiful. The cinematography was amazing, the acting-- especially Hugh Jackman's-- was superb, and the music was beautiful. Despite the seemingly incoherency of the film, it was gorgeous, and I believe that several aspects of it deserve an Oscar nod.\n\nI still feel that I would have cut the film a little differently to make it more clear that the future and past timelines are Tommy's fantasies such that the film begins with the present, not the past, and such that each part of his fantasy correlates more to what he just previously experienced in the present. Despite that, I still think Aronofsky put it all together to make it work if the audience is willing to think a bit. "The Fountain" is a beautiful, profound, and momentous film.
41150
yes i would care to know the deeper meaning to the story! it would interest me! good luck w/ ur research!
494363
(spoiler)*\n\nshe kills herself, i'm not sure what happens after that becuase it's been a long time since I saw it.\n\nEDIT:\nSorry, the way you worded your question was unclear to me, but you can always go to the imdb site and ask people on the message boards about the ending, and some people have written out spoilers:\n\nhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381505/board/threads/
264913
*****SPOILER****  SPOILER****Remember when Professor Charles Xavier was giving the lecture to the students about their poweres and abilities and he had them watch the guy in the hospital bed? He talked about ability transferring if they had the power to do that and what benefits it could have and the ethics of it, etc etc?\n\n\nWEll in the very end after the credits...it shows a female Dr enter a hospital room, she checks in on the patient then we hear Prof Xavier's voice say,"Moira" and she replies "Charles?" so, this is Dr. Moira MacTaggart and Prof Xavier has transferred is mental being into this man. Leaves it open to sequal of course...especially with the fact that Magneto could start moving the chess piece even if it was slight..showing only temporary cure that does not last.
445219
The Baudelaire's meet Count Olaf, and his neighbour Justice Strauss, who is possibly the only nice adult they ever do meet, apart from Uncle Monty.  They learn that their inheritance will  not be paid to them until Violet reaches 18.\nCount Olaf decides to marry Violet, which is a little disconcerting given she is about 14 in the book, and he puts a ply on called The Marvellous Marriage intending to marry Violet legally during the play.\nKlaus sits up all night reading about laws and works out the Counts evil plan.\nCount Olaf  locks their baby sister in a cage high up in the air to blackmail Violet into agreeing to the marriage.\nViolet signs the marriage document and it looks as though the Count has his evil plan all sorted out, until Violet announces that she signed it with her left hand and so her signature isn't legal.  The count protests and Justice Strauss said it would probably be upheld in a court of law because if Violet signed her name using her right hand the two signatures would be difficult to prove as belonging to the same person.\nJustice Strauss offers the orphans a home with her but Mr Poe says he can't allow it because the parents will stipulated the children must be raised by a relative
643729
The best person to answer that question is the conductor on the Ark. Presumably, one of Mr. N oah's employees.\nPerhaps the two snakes offered a suitable bribe.\nBut the original cast that starred in that biblical story, is probably no longer among the living. \nDarn clever them snakes. \nDon't you think.