Question: What exactly was the Federation treaty (main subject of the movie)?
BaconIsMyBFF
24th Jun 2019
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
24th Jun 2019
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Why exactly did Anakin say to Obi-wan "I hate you!"?
Answer: In Anakin's mind Kenobi betrayed Anakin by holding him back from his potential, by helping the Jedi attempt to overthrow Palpatine, and by manipulating Padme against him. This leads to a physical fight between the two wherein Kenobi severely maims Anakin, and as far as Anakin knows at the time would likely lead to his inevitable death. By this point he truly, passionately hates Obi-Wan Kenobi.
21st Jun 2019
Footloose (1984)
Question: When Ren is driving with his friends at night, he is told about the circumstances behind the death of Ariel's brother. It was quite clear that it was driving while under the influence of alcohol that was responsible for his death so why blame it on playing loud music?
Answer: The belief was that rock and roll was the root cause of the accident. The adults who supported the ban believed that rock and roll influenced the teens to do things they wouldn't normally do, such as drinking and driving.
Answer: One of the kids answers the question during the conversation by saying something along the lines of there's three things involved, and the adults didn't wanna get rid of two of 'em, which left dancing/music.
20th Jun 2019
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Question: Why do only certain characters have last names?
Answer: Most of the races and cultures in Middle Earth do not use what we would call in a modern setting a "full name", that is a given name followed by a family name. The Hobbits are the only race that does this regularly (i.e. Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee, etc). Most of the other races use the more medieval "son of" when stating a formal full name (i.e. Aragorn son of Arathorn, Gimli son of Gloin, etc). To answer the question directly, most of the characters that don't have last names don't have them because last names are not used in their culture.
Answer: It has to do with cultural differences. Some cultures in Middle Earth, like the Hobbits, use a family name (Frodo Baggins), others use a single name, followed by where they're from (Legolas of the Woodland Realm). Still others use the name of the father (Aragorn, son of Arathorn/Gimli, son of Gloin). Finally there are characters that use only a single name because they are of such standing that no other identification is necessary (Gandalf, Sauron, Sauruman), etc. These characters generally follow the name with a particular characteristic (Gandalf the Grey), and frequently have multiple names in different regions (Gandalf is known by many names).
Answer: The Hobbits use family groupings and thus last names. Frodo uses the surname Underhill in Bree and is instantly asked about Underhills in the Shire. Humans use a variety of names but not surnames - Aragorn is the son of Arathorn and Theoden is just called Theoden son of Thengel, and noble people like Denethor and Boromir are said to be "of the House of Voronwe or House of Hurin" Elves are immortal and thus do not need family names. Dwarves use the same naming convention as Men. Even Smaug uses one name.
19th Jun 2019
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Question: When Mola Ram is smiling, what is he looking at? Is he looking at the Maharajah or is he looking up at Willie, Indy and Short Round? (01:01:45)
Answer: It doesn't look as if Mola Ram is smiling at the trio, because they're standing to Mola Ram's upper right. The Little Maharaja is seated in front of the Thuggee high priest, but I don't think he's specifically looking downward, directly at the boy either. To me, it seems as if Mola Ram is smiling because while he's confident in his control of the Little Maharaja, it's the fact that he knows another human sacrifice is being brought out for the Kali sacrificial dark ritual.
The question gives the exact second.
Great, but I don't currently have a DVD player or have a copy or access to every movie someone asks a question about. If someone is asking a question, they shouldn't expect anyone to actually take the time to set up and watch the film in order to answer a question for them. Just give a brief description of the scene.
That's what the time stamp feature is used for. The question is asking what exactly Mola Ram is looking at in a specific second of time in the movie. Explaining the scene wouldn't help anyone answer the question. To answer, you will have to look at the movie and pay specific attention to that time stamp. If you can't do that then you can't answer the question and should just ignore.
I get what you're saying, but I've been able to answer many questions without having to re-watch a movie because the question contained enough specific information so that I knew which scene they were referring to. Based on the information given in the question, I can check movie clips on YouTube or get the answer by reading online movie synopsis. Every little bit of info helps.
Tough luck I guess?
14th Jun 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Why did time not end when Thanos destroyed the stones, and what happens in now there aren't any? The Ancient One stated that the stones control the flow of time, and removing even one of these opens up the world to unimaginable horror. Well why did nothing happen after Thanos destroyed them all? And now that our timeline has no stones, how would Dr. Strange be able to stop Dormammu from coming back?
Answer: The way I understood it, removing the stones from one timeline into another timeline is what The Ancient One was talking about. The "new branched reality" is what would be overrun by the forces of darkness. But, even if she meant this reality, the reality where Thanos destroyed the stones, The Ancient One said it was their chief weapon, not their only weapon. Bruce then tells her Doctor Strange gave the time stone to Thanos and The Ancient One says maybe she made a mistake. However, since Thanos eliminates half the population of the universe, including the forces of darkness, whatever forces she was talking about may not have been around to try and attack Earth. Or in the 5 years that we don't see, there was an attempt and other weapons were sufficient.
Answer: In the comics the stones will be replaced by something else equally powerful to compensate for their loss. I suppose the same applies to the MCU. These powers need to have a physical presence in the universe, in one way or another.
The only problem is the films never insinuate this at all. The Ancient One flat out states that not having the stones would be bad for the universe, and yet Thanos destroys the stones with absolutely no adverse affects to the universe whatsoever. This movie played very fast and loose with the rules they established regarding the stones and time travel and I feel like things like this were massive flaws.
The universe is a pretty big place, though. There could very well be bad things in another part of the universe that have yet to affect our galaxy. Additionally, the forces of darkness that could potentially threaten the universe may be curbed by a cosmic entity such as the Living Tribunal, whose existence in the MCU was acknowledged in "Doctor Strange" and could very well appear in "The Eternals" or "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3."
I just believe the ancient one didn't even know. The ancient one isn't always correct, as Bruce proved. And the bad thing was taking the stones away from their timeline, creating timelines where they are not supposed to be, it says nothing about destroying them.
That to me is still bad writing. You have a character whose entire purpose in the movie is to give exposition, and the exposition she gives is apparently incorrect. That's all well and good but that still needs to be addressed at some point. Some character should have brought up the fact that the stones were destroyed (and incidentally, remain destroyed in the main timeline) and the Ancient One should have addressed that fact. Otherwise, like the original question points out, it leaves a bit of a gap in the film's logic.
Answer: I believe the filmmakers have said that the energy of the stones was dissipated into the universe when their crystal vessels were destroyed. So that while they didn't have a physical form anymore, their essence remained and continued to regulate the flow of existence of the Universe. Presumably the energy can't then be reconstituted into the stones without some sort of profoundly intricate magic/science, the kind of power only possessed by gods and/or ancient elemental beings. Also, the Ancient One says that Hulk taking the time stone would be good for his timeline, but would leave hers without their weapon, which I presume means they wouldn't have the time stone to help the Sanctum's usual efforts in holding dark magic at bay. The actual effect of removing the essence of a stone from its timeline is still open to speculation.
If the ancient one was only talking about the time stone then Cap wouldn't have to bother bringing all stones back. No, she was talking about all infinity gems. Remove a stone and that universe is doomed.
Answer: The sorcerers may have other ways to stop Dormmamu from returning (even if those ways are currently unbeknownst to them). This could be addressed in the sequel. Additionally, since Dormmamu would have to know that the Time Stone was destroyed in the first place, he may well just stay away rather than falsely believing that he can be trapped in a time loop again.
Answer: She said the world not the universe. She said "without our chief weapon against the forces of darkness our world will be overrun." Theory: since Thanos used the stones to destroy the stones and Hulk heard what the Ancient One said, he could have used the stones to bring back their stones along with everyone else. He couldn't have know who all died in the universe, he could have just undid everything from 5 years ago.
14th Jun 2019
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997)
3rd Jun 2019
The Departed (2006)
Question: The dirty cop who shot Costigan; how did he end up there? Costigan names the time and location over the phone to Sullivan. He also states while on the roof to Anthony Anderson that he called him for verification of who he was. That relates back to their time at the Academy together. It's a bad gaffe in the climax of the story. It's like he just magically appears, unless I'm missing something. Any answers as to how that other rat in the staties on behalf of Costello who kills Costigan ended up at that point to kill William?
Answer: If Leo was in the lineup for Costello's crew, why didn't Anthony Anderson pick him up in the line up while investigating Costello? They had pictures of the whole crew. Anthony Anderson was in SIU. Bothers me.
Pick him out as what? Someone who supposedly washed out of the academy and turned to crime? Costello knows this - it's part of Costigan's cover.
Answer: The implication based on the dialogue is that Trooper Barrigan had been following Sullivan ever since he discovered that Costello was an FBI informant. He states that because of Costello's actions, the two of them have to stick together now and look out for each other.
6th Jun 2019
Carrie (1976)
Question: I believe that Carrie did not actually die at the end of the film and is waiting to torment Sue and whoever else messes with her. Anyone adhere to this?
Answer: That was always the impression I got until the sequel was released in 1999 (The Rage: Carrie 2) that made it clear Carrie White was definitively dead.
So her grabbing her arm, what was the purpose for that?
It was a nightmare, never happened, it was just Sue's imagination.
Answer: Her grabbing her arm was a guilt ridden nightmare that Sue had.
6th Jun 2019
The Blue Lagoon (1980)
Question: At the end of the movie, when the ship finds Richard, Emmeline, and baby Paddy in the lifeboat, Richard's father asks if they are dead. A crewman tells him that they are only asleep. Are they really dead and the crewman was trying to spare his feelings by lying to him, or are they really only sleeping?
Answer: The ending is meant to be ambiguous, and is identical to the ending of the original novel on which the film is based. It is never answered whether they are alive or not.
Answer: At the end of the movie, it says they are only asleep. But in the second film (The Blue Lagoon: The Awakening), they say that they are dead. However, the child is not, because he didn't actually eat any of the dead and buried berries. Then they named the baby Richard because that was the first word baby Paddy could say. He probably said it a lot, so they thought that was his name.
5th Jun 2019
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Question: Is it ever stated in the movie what Marcellus' reason was for Butch to throw the fight?
Answer: Marcellus was fixing the fight. Marcellus paid Butch a large sum of money to throw the fight so that he and others could bet even more money on Floyd to win the fight. If Butch had done what he was paid to do it would have been a guaranteed win for Marcellus.
28th May 2019
Room (2015)
Question: How does Ma spend seven years with 'old Nick' and never catch his real name? She must call him something to his face.
Answer: Old Nick keeps Joy completely isolated from the outside world. He never has any reason to mention his real name to her and she certainly is in no position to force him to do so. What she calls him to his face, if anything, is never addressed.
28th May 2019
Taken (2008)
28th May 2019
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
Question: When Johnny transforms during the wedding, why does his uniform appear when he didn't have it on?
Answer: He had it on under his clothes. When the regular clothes burned off his fireproof uniform was all that remained.
15th May 2019
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: Given that the entire McFly family's circumstances have changed at the end of the movie due to Marty altering the past, shouldn't Marty's whole life have gone down a completely different path from childhood on? What are the odds that he even still knows Doc and Jennifer in the revised 1985 (let alone has the exact same date planned with Jennifer for the very same evening), given that everything else has changed?
Answer: The suggestion is given that he was the only "normal" person in the family and when he changed the past his parents and siblings became more "normal" people as well whilst he stayed as he was, despitegrowingup with different parents and siblings, since he was "normal" anyway. This totally ignores the linear timeline idea given during the entire movie, but it's obvious that was the idea.
You're absolutely right about Marty being the only "normal" one in the family, but that doesn't ignore the linear timeline idea. There are two different Marty McFly's by the end of this movie. There's the one we follow, who grew up with unhappy parents, and then there's the other Marty McFly who grew up with cool parents. We see the 2nd Marty go back to 1955 when Marty gets back to the Twin Pines mall. The idea isn't to ignore the linear timeline idea, but rather to imply that unhappy parents or not Marty will still always be Marty.
Except for the fact Marty kept being in danger of disappearing if his parents wouldn't get together. If his old self would disappear from his parents not getting together then so he should if his entire life is different and he would be a different Marty just like his siblings. Even if it's only memories rather than an entire personality.
Answer: It's definitely a paradox. Marty actually goes back to the life of 2nd Marty, but if that's the case then original Marty should have still faded away since he created a new timeline when he gave George confidence. Original Marty shouldn't exist anymore at all, he should have faded completely away on the stage. I've said it before and I'll say it again: time travel movies are a mess.
The new Marty isn't a different person entirely; he's just the same guy who was raised in a slightly different environment to the original timeline. Marty's actions in 1955 have ensured that his parents will have three children, and he will be one of them. His existence is completely secured in the timeline.
15th May 2019
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: Are we ever given any suggestion as to what offence Lorraine's brother was incarcerated for?
Answer: Not in any official, canon source. In the Back to the Future comic books published by IDW he is an aspiring member of Biff's gang and gets arrested breaking into the home of Doc Brown's mother in an attempt to steal a large sum of money. It must be reiterated that the comics are non-canon and this should be taken with a grain of salt.
The comic books are so skewed from the movie events, they cannot be considered canon. "Jailbird Joey" was only a baby in a playpen when Biff and his gang were seniors in highschool. Unless Biff and his highschool buddies were still recruiting gang members into their mid-30s, there is no way Jailbird Joey would be trying to join their gang.
While the answer does state the comics aren't cannon, it's the only place that really delves into Uncle Joey's criminal history since the film's didn't need to spend time discussing the exact nature of his crimes. However, it would not be unreasonable (or even unheard of) for Biff to be recruiting members for his "gang" at 35. Plus, Joey wanting to be part of Biff's gang wouldn't necessarily require Biff or his high school buddies to be personally involved in recruiting young Joey.
14th May 2019
Pacific Rim (2013)
Question: If the Kaiju are artificially created clones, why do they have parasites?
Answer: Presumably the parasites are simply creatures that exist on the other side of the breach. We see very little of the world in which the kaiju live, we only ever see the facility that is directly on the other side of the breach. The kaiju homeworld could be infested with these parasites, we just never actually see any up close.
7th May 2019
High School Musical 2 (2007)
Question: In the finale number "All for one" the sign says "pool closed - staff only". How are Ryan and Sharpay able to be there when they are members?
Answer: A "Staff Only" sign isn't much security, especially when you know just about everyone that works at the resort.
10th May 2019
The Karate Kid Part II (1986)
Question: What happened to Chozen after Daniel beat him? It's unlikely he'll show up in Cobra Kai.
Answer: There has never been any explanation of what happened to any of the characters who debuted in The Karate Kid Part II. The series Cobra Kai has so far focused only on Daniel, Johnny, and Kreese while introducing new characters. I wouldn't say it's unlikely Chosen would show up at some point, Yuji Okamoto (the actor who played Chosen) still acts regularly and could easily be brought to the series if the writers decided to focus on his character.
7th May 2019
The Karate Kid (1984)
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 treaty would have been an agreement between the Trade Federation and the Sovereign Planet Naboo that would have in effect legitimized the invasion of Naboo. The actual content of the treaty itself has never been elaborated upon, however it is clear that it would have given the Trade Federation substantial control over Naboo. Padme goes to the Senate to argue that the invasion of Naboo is an illegal act (it is) but the Senate is unmoved by her testimony and defers action until they can determine if an invasion has even taken place.
BaconIsMyBFF