Question: Why did the pigs not attack Lecter when he picked up Clarice? They went straight for the fat guy handcuffed to his accomplice and also to Verger but by passed Lecter. I thought it might be a blood thing which is why Lecter picked Clarice up after she was shot but A - Lecter doesn't know anything about the pigs and B - Mason wasn't bleeding before he got eaten.
Charles Austin Miller
8th Feb 2018
Hannibal (2001)
Answer: The implication is that savage animals recognize Lecter as another, even more savage animal. Call it kinship. Lecter has the same effect on attack dogs.
Answer: Probably the same reason the Alsatian dog of Krendler didn't attack him either.
16th Aug 2018
Constantine (2005)
Question: After Gabriel becomes human and John punched her in the face and walked off, why does Gabriel just climb back into the pool?
Answer: Well, far be it from us to second-guess the motives of angels; however, considering that Lucifer had just burned Gabriel's wings down to stumps a few moments earlier (and the angel was now feeling intense mortal pain), Gabriel retreated into the water to soothe the burns.
Lucifer didn't take her wings. God did. He cast her out for trying to bring the son to earth.
No, God removed Gabriel's powers, leaving Gabriel unprotected, and it was Lucifer who burned away Gabriel's wings.
That's right. Lucifer said "looks like someone doesn't have your back anymore". God took Gabriel's wings.
9th Aug 2018
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
Question: When Brian is about to be crucified, soldiers arrive with news of his release. The soldiers ask for Brian, and everybody shouts "I'm Brian." Is this a parody of the "I'm Spartacus" episode in the Kirk Douglas/Stanley Kubrick film of "Spartacus"? If so, would this support my feeling that Life Of Brian is primarily a parody of classical/biblical 'epic' films?
Answer: Actually, no, the primary goal of "Life of Brian" was not to parody biblical films. Terry Gilliam has stated that the "important" objective of the movie was "to offend a lot of people," particularly "Jews and Christians, because they're easy to push around." Gilliam further said that, at the same time, they were "very cautious not to offend Muslims, because they're the dangerous ones." Both Gilliam and John Cleese have also said that, while the Pythons took care to avoid blasphemy (not directly mocking Jesus of Nazareth, with whom the Pythons had no quarrel), they fully intended that the film be heretical (in defiance of Catholic Church doctrine and dogma). Make no mistake, "Life of Brian" is not supposed to be a lighthearted parody of biblical films; it's supposed to be a sharp stick in the eye to the Roman Catholic Church.
Answer: The scene is a parody of the scene in "Spartacus" (although they are saying "I am Brian" for completely different reasons.) However, the film is meant to be a satire on religion itself and not a parody of epic films. The Pythons did a lot of research to try and accurately portray 1st century Judea, which is why it may look like a biblical epic, but I can't recall any biblical epics they parodied. At the time it was considered blasphemous, and not a parody, and banned in several areas in the UK and some countries. Although the Pythons argued it's not blasphemy but heresy.
Answer: You are indeed correct. It is a parody of the "Spartacus" scene but mostly of religion.
Perhaps not so much a parody of "Spartacus" as a tribute to Stanley Kubrick. Monty Python writer Terry Gilliam was very much a fan of Kubrick films and became friends with Kubrick in the 1980s. Gilliam claimed that Kubrick had even spoken with him about making a sequel to Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" (with Gilliam as director). Chances are, the "Spartacus" allusion was part of Gilliam's contribution to the "Life of Brian" screenplay, a tip-o-the-hat to Stanley Kubrick.
9th Aug 2018
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Question: Why did the T-1000 kill the officer in the beginning and steal his clothes? Later we see the uniform heal so we know he can create clothing.
Answer: He didn't steal his clothes, but copied them. He can only copy things that he physically touches. He had to touch the cop to take on his look. Also since the cop was a witness to this ruthless killing machine, it needed to kill him to protect itself from being discovered too soon. The Terminator is an infiltration unit on an assassination mission to kill John Connor. As advanced as it is, it needs as little attention drawn to it as possible. Having the entire police force chasing him down would not be ideal for his goal to get Connor and would inevitably slow him down and risk allowing Connor a better chance of escape. The T 1000 also is an emotionless machine programmed by other machines that are intent on killing off all humans in the future. It doesn't value human life, and if anything has been programmed to regard them as a pest to be dealt with. The cop was a means to an ends and an obstacle to take out. As well, the cop did also posses a weapon, and was the T-1000's quickest way to get his hands on a gun.
Answer: While the T-1000 did kill the officer at the beginning (which is pretty much standard behavior for Terminators), it didn't steal the officer's clothes. It merely sampled the officer's appearance as soon as it touched him. However, it did steal the officer's firearm, because the T-1000 could not mimic complex mechanical objects or weapons (it could only mimic stabbing and cutting weapons).
9th Aug 2018
Lord of the Flies (1963)
Question: One of the boys, called Piggy, wears glasses. Piggy's glasses become an important, prized object, because the boys can use the lenses to refract the sun's rays, and thus start fires. It is fairly well established, that, on a hot day, in bright sunshine, one can focus the sun's rays through a magnifying glass to set light to combustible material. (I've done it myself, although it took me rather longer than the book or film suggested, and it only made a very small flame.) But could you use spectacles, that people wear to correct defective vision, to start a fire in this way? Surely, if this was possible, wouldn't it mean that when people who wear glasses went out in hot sunny weather, then they would burn their eyes?
Answer: The key factor there is the focus of the light over distance. The light coming through the glass is refracted and focused on a single point. But it's bent like a ribbon. There is a "sweet spot" so to say where you have to hold the magnifying glass or lens at just the right distance and angle from the object to focus the center point of the light on it. Typically, this means holding the glass out a good several inches or even a foot or so away from what you wish to ignite to get the focal point of the light on it. Someone wearing glasses has them pretty much right up to their face. And so the light can't reach a focal point. Also keep in mind that for focusing the light through a lens, it needs to be angled just right for the light to go through it at the optimal angle and focus. Usually this means facing the sun directly. Typically people don't look up directly at the sun, at least not for more than a second. Especially with glasses on.
Answer: Only convex magnifying lenses can be used to focus the sun's rays in such a way as to start a fire. A convex magnifying lens is bowed outwards on both sides. Such lenses are found in magnifying glasses, binoculars and cameras, for examples. Conventional spectacles to correct vision are convex on one side and concave (bowed inward) on the other side, and so cannot be used to start fires. If Piggy's glasses are used to start fires, then he is wearing convex magnifying lenses (which would only be useful for up-close reading purposes, and they would be utterly useless for any other vision correction) ; and, if indeed he is wearing truly convex magnifying lenses for some reason, then his retinas could certainly be damaged by even glancing at the sun.
Answer: Lenses for nearsightedness would not work, but they could be corrected for the purpose by filling their concave areas with clear water, which would make the whole object correctly refract sunlight.
That's a reported "survival" trick (placing a drop of clear water in the center of a concave lens so as to focus the sun's rays) ; but I've never had any success with it.
8th Aug 2018
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Why would the council not make Anakin a Jedi master?
Answer: Here's a bit more detailed of an answer, after I had some more time to think about it. Remember that Anakin is still young, in his mid to late 20's approximate. He still had a ways to go till he reached the rank of Master on his own anyways, with the council being skeptical of him to begin with. His induction onto the Council was not something they wanted in the first place. Rather, it was Palpatine that appointed him as his representative on the Counsel.The Jedi had been growing to distrust Palpatine in this time and even Mace Windu stated that they could feel the Dark Side surrounds him. They didn't yet know he was secretly Sidious, but even still they had a growing concern about him and his ability to stay in office longer than intended as well as him reaching for more power. The Jedi allowed Anakin onto the Council because it was an opportunity for them... to use Anakin to spy on Palpatine. An assignment given to him off the record. They denied him the rank of Master for a number of reason. 1. His age. Again he's not even 30 yet and Obi-Wan even stated that to be on the Council at his age was unheard of. 2. They didn't trust him fully. He hadn't earned the respect and experience needed for the rank of Master yet. And there was the matter of Yoda sensing his future to be very clouded and unsure. Like Charlies said, his exceptionally high Midiclorian count and his unpredictability due to it was a high cause for concern. 3. It's likely they didn't intend to keep him on the Council. The war was close to ending, or so they hoped. The Separatist armies were dwindling and on the run. It looked like victory was a sure fire deal in the near future, as Count Dooku had been killed and they had traced the location of General Grievous. Once Grievous was dealt with, the war would pretty much be over at that point. They just feared that Palpatine might not relinquish his power at the end and needed someone close to him to keep an eye on him. Anakin was the only one among their ranks that could do that job due to his friendship with Palpatine. Which also that friendship was another red flag for them for Anakin. I believe that once the war was over and Palpatine finally removed from office now that things were settled, they did not intend to keep Anakin on the council any longer since he was an unwelcome semi-forced member in the first place. Allowing him to possibly earn his own way in the future and achieving the Rank of Master on his own right, if he could do it. So, basically, they didn't trust Anakin, he was too young, they needed him on the Council only temporarily, and intended to boot him off the Council and let him earn his own way back on his own after the dust had settled from the war. Just as we know... things didn't turn out that way.
Anakin was also acting very immature.
This is true. After he was put on the council he complained that it's not fair and not right.
Answer: He had not yet proven himself enough. Keep in mind he's still pretty young here, somewhere in his mid 20's. The Masters are older, more experienced and proven Jedi who are wise and have gained the respect. Also his closeness to the Chancellor made him a liability and they were not sure they could trust him to make decisions rationally when he was involved.
Answer: In "Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace," Qui-Gon Jinn discovers and reveals to the Jedi Council that 9-year-old Anakin Skywalker has the highest midichlorian reading ever recorded. Midichlorians, of course, are the microscopic lifeforms that allow Jedi and Sith alike to wield The Force. Anakin's midichlorians are off the chart, meaning that he has potential to be the strongest Jedi Master ever. Ever. That's why the Jedi Council approaches Anakin's training very, very cautiously. Rather than fast-tracking him to Jedi Master, the Council extends Anakin's apprenticeship to focus on his self-discipline, because they fear that this kid is a ticking bomb who could, potentially, flip to the Dark Side with catastrophic results (which is precisely what happens).
Answer: The only two ways for a Knight to achieve Masterhood, are for the Knight to successfully train a Padawan to Knighthood. The other is an extreme act of heroism, as determined by the Council. Then the Knight can be given a second set of trials more difficult than the first, pass them and achieve Masterhood. Anakin hasn't done either of those.
7th Aug 2018
General questions
Why didn't Arnold hit the predator with the stone he picked at the end? its looked like he was confused and was not expecting what he was seeing.
Answer: Arnold was not certain that the Predator was mortally injured, and he was going to crush its skull just to be sure. However, before he can deliver the blow, he sees the Predator coughing up a quantity of green blood; he then knows the thing is dying, so he pauses. Arnold is then startled by the Predator mimicking human speech and activating the strange device on its wrist. Almost too late, Arnold realises he has only seconds to escape.
Answer: He wanted to finish him off but realised he was pinned under the log, trapped and obviously dying.
9th Jun 2018
Hannibal (2001)
Question: How did Hannibal manage to make it onto a commercial airplane at the end of the movie? Even if he had a fake ID, wouldn't being on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list make it virtually impossible for him to get through a high security place like an airport, where the feds would likely instruct security staff to stop anyone that even remotely resembles him? The fact that he cut off his own hand at the end of the film would make him easier to spot, as the FBI would definitely share that new detail about him.
Answer: As seen in the first film and in this one, Lecter demonstrates an almost supernatural ability for eluding the law and seemingly being in two places at once. This film was made in the year 2000, before airport security became extremely tight in late 2001. At that time (before 9/11), it was still possible to enter an airport's main concourse through the baggage claim or even from the tarmac without passing through rigorous security. As ingenious as Lecter was, he could have accessed the airport in a number of ways back then. Relieving another passenger of his boarding pass and identification would be no problem for Lecter, either (simply leave the passenger's body in an airport toilet and assume his identity). For the most part, it was Lecter's calm, self-confident charm that allowed him to slither through society always ten steps ahead of the law.
Answer: Perhaps he bribed his way through security onto the plane. Or maybe he murdered anyone who even remotely challenged him. He was probably wearing a disguise. It's possible that he had been planning this whole thing for an unspecified amount of time. And don't forget: he is a genius. And determined. He wouldn't let a little thing like protocol get in the way of his escape.
Answer: There is an assumption that he cut his hand off in the end. Ask yourself this for a very graphic movie why did they not show the chopped of hand. You just hear the chop but no sound from Lecter and only an emotional reaction from Starling. It is only alluded to and even if he did happen to chop it off he would be in so much pain as he acknowledged this was going to hurt he would not have been able to escape without help from Starling.
6th Aug 2018
Hannibal (2001)
Question: When the pickpocketer, on the request of Pazzi, had gotten Lecter's fingerprint he was also stabbed. He collapses and Pazzi takes a look at the wound which he was covering with his hand. It appears that Pazzi intentionally prevented him from covering the wound so he would bleed out faster. Why?
Answer: Lecter stabs the pickpocket in the abdomen and gives the knife a quick twist, expertly severing the aorta, which was a fatal wound. Nothing could prevent the pickpocket's death, as he only had moments to live. Pazzi realises this when he inspects the wound. There was nothing Pazzi could do, either way.
I don't think Hannibal severed his aorta. The wound was in the groin where the femoral artery runs relatively close to the surface. You will still bleed to death from this artery in around 1 min.
No, the aorta runs from the heart down through the thoracic cavity and the abdominal cavity before it branches into the femoral arteries at the pelvis. Lecter plainly stabbed the pickpocket deep in the abdomen, in the area of his navel, and twisted the knife to sever the aorta. The pickpocket would only have moments to live (or minutes, at most). When Pazzi inspects the wound, the pickpocket's hands are covering his abdomen, which is bleeding profusely.
Being a seasoned police officer, he knew this wound was fatal. We don't know exactly where the injury occurred, but most likely the upper femoral artery or the lower descending aortic artery. Sadly, as an E.R. nurse, I have seen many of these and death occurs rapidly and most don't even make it to the E.R.
Answer: I, myself, wondered this, too. I think that it's because the guy was a criminal and Pazzi didn't want himself to be linked to the pick pocket by either the cops or Hannibal, himself. Remember Pazzi was up to no good - he wanted the reward and so, would stop at nothing to get the money, even if it meant letting another person die. The pick pocket was a loose end that Pazzi had to tie up. The pick pocket's death would also prevent Pazzi from being blackmailed later on down the line.
Exactly, he didn't want any witnesses. It was convenient for Pazzi to have the pickpocket bleed out.
Answer: After their run-in, the pickpocket says, "he tried to hit me in the balls, but he missed." Hannibal must've went for the femoral artery. I thought maybe, the way Gnocco was bleeding, the direction the blood was gushing, Hannibal had separated Gnocco from his "manhood."
6th Aug 2018
Mission: Impossible (1996)
Question: Why did Claire return to Ethan? Jim must have sent her but why? Ethan had been framed, why send Claire to potentially expose herself to IMF if found? Is it because: Max receives mail from Ethan, immediately contacts Job to say "What the hell man someone claims you sold me junk!" Now Job/Jim knows he didn't deliver the actual list so he already plans to have Ethan steal the real one for him. Or is that too far fetched?
Answer: Jim has not been paid (at least in full) yet. This is revealed in the conversation Ethan has with Max in the car. Payment was conditional on the disk passing all her safety checks, which she had not done yet (she had not even looked at it yet). There is no way Jim knew the NOC list was junk at this point in time. However, since Jim has not been paid yet for the NOC list, he might have been trying to play it safe, and have Claire just keep tabs. If things don't go as planned, he might have left Claire as she was expendable to him. Also it is unlikely Max contacted Jim (Job) to ask about the email from Ethan (pretending to be Job). Max at this point believes the two are the same person. She simply invites Job to come in and discuss further.
Answer: Sending Claire back to Ethan was a daring ploy to get on the inside of Ethan's confidence. It made no sense and was the least likely thing Claire would do if she was part of Jim's plan. Ethan could have killed her, but the ploy worked and Ethan was confused enough to let her live.
But why? Jim sells the list to Max and rides off into the sunset with Claire, or so he intends to. What does he gain from having someone on the inside initially? Ethan is screwed, Jim doesn't need to get all the juicy details of how he goes down. Later on it's beneficial for him to have Claire in place there, but initially it makes no sense. Before Ethan formulates any plan and before Max finds out the list is bad.
Jim knew the first NOC list was bad but used the failed raid as an opportunity to kill off a number of IMF agents who might otherwise thwart his plans. Jim still needed Ethan to procure the real NOC list, but this time using a reduced team that contained 2 moles (Claire and Franz). Jim knew that Ethan was the most capable agent, but wanted him under close scrutiny by Claire and Franz.
He knew it was bad? Then why did he give it to Max anyway? If Ethan hadn't warned her she might have been caught by Kittrdige. Are you saying Jim foresaw everything, I mean everything that Ethan would do? He went through with the embassy raid knowing it was a mole hunt in advance, knowing Ethan would later get the real one for him? What if Ethan had gone with Kittridge in the restaurant? I mean it's unlikely, but this whole scenario sees Jim leaving sooo much to chance. I find it more plausible that he did think he was getting the list in Prague and then adapted to the situation to use Ethan to get the real one. I mean if he really knew the list wasn't in Praque he could have saved himself the trouble and just hire a couple of disavowed agents to do the Langley job himself, just like Ethan did. He had Claire, Krieger and Luther. Yeah no Ethan, but I mean I'm sure he could have found someone else who is capable.
6th Aug 2018
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
Question: At the beginning of the movie, when Captain America climbs aboard the ship, he strangles a man and pulls him out of the screen. But he gets up very quickly afterwards and goes on to fight other pirates. We don't hear any neck snapping sound, so how did he take out the guard so quickly?
Answer: Choke hold would not require a snapping sound. Or he could have thrown the guy off the ship.
Answer: With Cap's sheer physical strength, he could have quietly thrown the guy 40 yards.
6th Aug 2018
Dr. No (1962)
Question: Why did Bond and the others go to see the 'dragon' and even attempt to incapacitate it?
Answer: Bond suspected that Dr. No was collecting radioactive materials for his secret project to sabotage the American space program, and Bond suspected that heavily-guarded Crab Key was the center of Dr. No's secret operation. Bond knew that the "dragon" was just a mobile flame-thrower protecting the most vulnerable area of the island, and so he and the others deliberately targeted it (although they failed).
But they didn't need to seize it, did they? This whole scene appears to be 'forced' in order for Bond and the girl to be apprehended and Quarrel killed off (why didn't he just run?). It just doesn't seem right that Bond would attack an armored flame throwing vehicle with just a gun. The Bond I know would stealthily have followed it to the base, or even simpler, followed the tire tracks.
Well, it wouldn't be the first or last time Bond allowed himself to be captured in order to penetrate the heavy's inner-sanctum.
Answer: Well, Bond knew that dragons didn't exist and when he was proven correct, he attempted to halt the 'dragons' advance.
In what way did the dragon have the upper hand? They did not know where Bond and the others were. Bond and the other two could have simply stayed where they were and the dragon wouldn't be any threat to them. Even if the dragon did manage to find them, they could simply run deeper into the woods/cross a river so they couldn't be followed.
31st Mar 2017
El Dorado (1966)
Question: What was the mixture that Mississippi gave to JP Harra?
Answer: The prime ingredient was Ipecac, a nausea-inducing compound (still used today) which so inflames the stomach lining that it's impossible for the patient to hold anything down. Hot mustard in large doses has a similar effect. The other ingredients (croton oil, cayenne pepper, etc) acted as powerful laxatives, so the entire gastrointestinal tract is evacuated in short order. The gunpowder was a fantasy ingredient, no doubt, as gunpowder is known to cause gangrene of internal tissues.
Answer: It was an old folk remedy for a hangover. It was supposed to make someone unable to drink liquor for a short period of time. The fictional potion's ingredients were not specified.
The ingredients of Mississippi's hangover concoction are very surely in the scripted dialogue. Mississippi: "Johnny Diamond had a recipe. Let's see. Cayenne pepper, mustard-the hot kind, ipecac, asafetida, and oil of cloves or was it? No, it was croton oil." Bull: "Croton oil?! I'll be a suck-egg mule. You know what that mixture'll do to a fella?" Mississippi: "Guaranteed kill or cure." The final ingredient is gunpowder.
Answer: Croaking oil, gunpowder, hot mustard, ipecac, asafetida.
13th Jul 2017
General questions
When did purely percussive movie and television soundtracks become popular? What landmark movie or TV soundtrack set this percussive precedent?
Answer: Probably in the late 1990s or around the turn of the century and it was probably gradual as these things go. Sometimes its easier to use a specific song to set a specific mood (this started probably more so in the 1980s) as opposed to creating a new one but that being said, its generally up to a composer and the style of the film in question as to whether they use a percussion style soundtrack or a more traditional sounding one and there are relatively recent films that sound like they could be old school.
The earliest percussive soundtrack that I recall debuted in James Cameron's first "Terminator" film. While it did have a mournful and melodic synthesized musical theme, the soundtrack was punctuated in several places with industrial banging and thumping (typically when the Terminator was onscreen). This percussive presence was amplified and expanded in the second Terminator film; and, by "Salvation," almost the entire soundtrack was industrial noise. But I'm not sure that Terminator alone ushered in the percussive soundtrack.
4th May 2008
Iron Man (2008)
Question: Why did Stark reveal he is Iron Man at the press conference? This makes no sense at all to me.
Answer: Tony underwent a dramatic metamorphosis during his captivity at the beginning of the film: In just a matter of screen-minutes, he transformed from a vulgar, egotistical merchant of death into a superhero fighting for life and freedom. As soon as he was rescued, he even held an impromptu press conference to announce a whole new mission statement for Stark Industries. Everyone thought Stark had lost his mind. Even the U.S. military and S.H.I.E.L.D. were still making up stories to cover for Tony's erratic behavior, right up to the end, at which point he puts all of the coverup and rumor and disinformation away once and for all: He is Iron Man, and this is his company, and this is how it will be run. It's not as if Tony Stark needs a secret identity, and his open admission wiped the slate clean for everything that follows.
Answer: Short version, he has a big ego and wanted the recognition. Also, in recent Marvel comics continuity there's been a superhero registration act, forcing superheroes to reveal their identities to the public. Tony Stark has been championing this cause "to tie the knots of friendship between ordinary humans and superheroes". His revelation in the movie could be laying the groundwork to tie into that in some way.
Answer: He's a womanizing multibillionaire with a power supply where his sternum should be. Of course he gave up his secret. It doesn't take a genius (and Stark is one with all caps) to figure out that he had a choice between intimacy or his secret identity.
29th Jul 2018
Deepwater Horizon (2016)
Question: What blew the door to Mike's workshop off its hinges?
Answer: That was the initial gas blow-out, prior to the explosion. Pressurized gas was coming out of the drill pipe with sufficient force to tear the place apart, even before it ignited.
What caused the gases to ignite?
Gas blowouts are notorious for igniting themselves. The vast quantity of gas and particulates, expelled under high pressure, create an electrostatic charge in the gas cloud that arcs to the nearest grounding point. It's like shuffling across a carpet and then touching a metal doorknob: a tiny electrostatic spark is created. Such a tiny spark is all that is necessary to ignite a cloud of petroleum gas.
29th Jul 2018
Apollo 13 (1995)
Question: How come all news networks refused to show Apollo 13's live TV broadcast?
Answer: The US had been to the moon twice before. America had already become jaded with NASA's successes and weren't interested in minute by minute coverage before they'd even reached the lunar surface.
The American public was not jaded with the lunar program so much as it was the Big Three television networks that had become complacent.
9th Dec 2017
Deepwater Horizon (2016)
Question: What causes pressure in an oil well?
Answer: That largely goes back to how oil is formed: from dead organic material. That sinks to the bottom of the sea, and if certain layers of sediment build up over that, it gets buried deep enough that's it's compressed, and after enough time passes, it becomes oil. But that pressure from the massive weight of miles and miles of rock on top of it never actually goes away, so when you poke a hole in it, that pressure suddenly has a way to go, via the oil spewing up through the well.
So basically the pressure is created by massive weight of miles and miles of rock on top of the oil that creates the well pressure. Is that correct?
Geologic forces are one thing, but there are different types of petroleum wells, ranging from crude oil to natural gas to combinations thereof. The lattermost, a oil/gas well, is most dangerous because it can suddenly start spewing natural gas when crude oil was expected. Tapping into an oil/gas well can be like popping the top on a can of soda: Gases are released from the fluid and expand rapidly, creating immense and unexpected pressure. In the case of the can of soda, the thing unexpectedly spews soda all over you and your clothing. In the case of an oil/gas well, the thing unexpectedly undergoes a gas blow-out and, potentially, a catastrophic explosion when it reaches the surface.
12th Nov 2017
Deepwater Horizon (2016)
Question: Did gases really go all over the exterior of the rig, and into the engine room as shown?
Answer: According to survivor reports, yes. In a gas blow-out, a huge quantity of pressurized petroleum gas pours out for many seconds, forming a rapidly-expanding cloud, before a single spark finally ignites it. Typically, the outpouring of gas creates its own spark as static electricity builds up.
28th Jul 2018
Deepwater Horizon (2016)
Question: Why did Vidrine not think there was anything wrong with the drill pipe, even though the drill pipe test showed a lot of pressure? Second, why did the test on the kill line show no pressure?
Answer: Vidrine didn't think there was anything wrong with the the drill pipe because there was nothing wrong with it. The problem was the cement cap they tried installing to seal the well. The thing to keep in mind is that British Petroleum didn't intend to immediately tap that well. Managers and crew of the floating platform rig planned to just cap the well and let another rig come along to handle actual production later. The crew was thus a little anxious to cement the well closed and abandon it. Some think it was this anxiousness to move on that produced the blowout. Of many procedures performed prior to abandonment was the "negative test" (whereby drilling mud was pulled out of the well to determine whether the cement cap could withstand the pressure). The negative test was bad, showing pressure in the drill line, an indication that gas had entered the well because they were applying suction to it, and the integrity of the cement cap was compromised. That's when Vidrine ordered the second test, this time on the kill line, and got a reading of no pressure (which was good, but was probably a false reading). Obviously, something wasn't right; but Vidrine, anxious to wrap the operation, decided to trust the kill line reading and basically ignore the drill line reading. This was a major mistake. As they continued pulling the drilling mud out, highly-pressurized gas shot straight up the drill pipe to the rig, and that was the end of Deepwater Horizon.
In the movie, the reason the kill line got no pressure is because the pipe got clogged. (if you listen to the audio description, you'll hear the audio describer the mud clogs the pipe during the kill line pressure test scene).
I thought it was mud that shot straight up from the drill pipe to the rig.
They were sucking the drilling mud up the pipe, but there was high-pressure petroleum gas behind it. They only realised too late that they had failed to cap the well; and then hell, as they say, broke loose.
Then what was that fluid flying upward through derrick?
You can liken a gas blow-out to somebody popping the top on a pressurized can of soda; gas and fluid alike come spewing out of what was, a moment before, a fairly stable fluid. Under tremendous pressure, all you need to do is give natural gas an escape route and all kinds of stuff comes up with it, including crude oil, asphalt, drilling mud, water, etc. The gas is blasting out of the earth and carrying anything and everything with it.
The mud contained a certain methane gas proportion, which ignited and caused the explosions.
Authorities don't think Vidrine was ultimately responsible though. They believe the an employee who died in the disaster was, because he was responsible for the bladder effect hypothesis. I think what the film is actually trying to say is that the person who made the mistake of trusting the kill line was ultimately responsible.
In real life, it was Vidrine who chose to trust the kill line reading and ignore the drill line reading.
By blaming someone who isn't around to defend themselves as they died in the disaster is considered cowardly. That's why in my opinion, money exchanged hands between BP and the Authorities to ensure no charges were brought against Vidrine. Again that's my own opinion. Here's a link to where the manslaughter charges against Kaluza and Vidrine are dropped https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/manslaughter-charges-dropped-bp-employees-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill.
Personally I think the idea that the actual villain was the guy who was responsible for the bladder effect hypothesis, and not the guy who chose to trust the kill line reading, and not the drill line reading is absurd.
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: The implication is that the boars are afraid of Lecter, which is why they don't attack him - he shows no fear and exudes dominance.
Sierra1 ★
Next to that the pigs are trained to attack anything that screams. Hannibal stayed calm and thus was ignored.
lionhead
Didn't Verger describe the pigs (by mentioning their molars and incisors) to Lecter when he was first brought to Verger strapped to the dolly?
He also didn't scream or make noise to get their attention.
I'm inclined to agree here. The boars could sense that Lecter was the most savage predator in the pit, and the animals steered clear of him for that reason. Call it "professional courtesy."
Charles Austin Miller