Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

7
  • Ah, basking in the glow. Thanks!
    – Politank-Z
    Commented Jan 26, 2016 at 4:25
  • 14
    I think there actually must have been multiple extra Clark Gable films; it wouldn't make sense for her to refer to this movie as "a Clark Gable movie", rather than by its name, unless he was already famous before this movie. (Oh, though I suppose he might have been famous for something else before his film career. Maybe he had a brief stint as a world-famous eugenics researcher?)
    – ruakh
    Commented Jan 26, 2016 at 5:12
  • 16
    OK, so Star Trek Mark Twain grew more hopeful in his later years, and wrote an uplifting story which was made into one of the first talkies, with Clark Gable in a supporting role. This made him a star and led him to anchor his own film in 1930. I like it.
    – Politank-Z
    Commented Jan 26, 2016 at 6:30
  • 1
    Never thought of the butterfly effect going backwards from the point of contact, but then no one ever jumped in a pool without making waves in every direction, did they?
    – corsiKa
    Commented Jan 26, 2016 at 13:10
  • 2
    @SJuan76 I... never said it did - I just thought it was interesting to consider a ripple effect that goes backwards to account for a change to a timeline.
    – corsiKa
    Commented Jan 26, 2016 at 19:56