Question: Why do those charms disappear at the end? Does Ren use the force to destroy them?
BaconIsMyBFF
25th May 2018
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
23rd Aug 2018
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Question: Why did the writers decide to have Snoke killed just like that? Fans have spent the last two years wondering about so many theories about who he is, so was it really wise to kill him that early on without even the slightest hint as to who he really is?
Answer: According to reports, JJ Abrams had different ideas for each characters' story arcs while he was directing "The Force Awakens"; when Rian Johnson signed on as director for "Last Jedi", he basically decided to ignore Abrams' ideas and create his own direction for every major character, including Snoke. Since there is still one more film left in the current trilogy, though, we may learn more about Snoke's true nature in Episode IX; the possibility also exists that he may return as a Force ghost or in a cloned body, at least according to fan theories.
Answer: I know this caused quite the uproar with a lot of the fans, but looking back at the original trilogy, how much information was known about Emperor Palpatine when he was killed off? None of this was addressed until the prequel trilogy many years later.
Exactly. I have made this same argument so many times. Back when the original trilogy came out, none of us were running around complaining that we never found out the Emperor's backstory.
I was merely asking why they decided to kill off Snoke this early.
To be more to the point of your question, it seems that Rian Johnson believed (in my opinion, correctly) that the Snoke character added very little to the story and his death would be shocking to the audience. As a virtual copy of Palpatine in almost every way, the audience expected Snoke to fill a similar role in this story and last well into the third film. By killing Snoke so early, you get rid of a pretty useless character and also shock your audience, leaving them with no idea what direction the story will take going forward.
3rd Dec 2018
Gravity (2013)
Question: On the Russian vessel, shortly after Ryan boards via the airlock, there's a readout in English concerning oxygen. Shouldn't the readout, and indeed virtually everything on that ship, be written in Russian?
Answer: The International Space Station is serviced and manned by representatives from several countries. It stands to reason that because of this, instructions for spacecraft and equipment would be printed in several languages. As the movie shows, in the case of an emergency it would not make sense to have spacecraft and equipment be effectively "locked out" to those who don't speak a particular language when that problem can be easily solved by printing instructions in multiple languages.
3rd Dec 2018
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Question: Why does Luke agree to train Rey just cause R2 showed him Leia's message to Obi Wan?
Answer: Rey states that she needs to train in order to help Leia and the Resistance. The message reminded Luke that once he too came to the aid of Leia, and in doing so changed his life forever. It also sparks a pleasant memory for Luke, he loves his sister dearly and the message reminds him of this.
10th Feb 2015
The Remaining (2014)
Question: The end of the movie had me all confused. What happened? Is it implying that the Angels came down from Heaven and began killing all the new believers? What were we led to believe at the end?
Answer: At the end locusts descend on earth from heaven to wipe out the human race. This is taken directly from the bible. Basically, everyone who was not taken during the rapture would be left on earth to be tormented and eventually all of humanity would be wiped out by a massive swarm of locusts.
7th Sep 2014
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987)
Question: Is MACC inspired or copied from Johnny 5 from Short Circuit?
Answer: Although the series creators have never confirmed this, it seems fairly obvious that MACC is inspired by Johnny 5.
11th Nov 2017
We Are Marshall (2006)
Question: Why didn't the NCAA let freshmen play football before 1971? What were their reasons for not wanting freshmen to play?
Answer: The original idea was to force Freshmen players to gradually adapt to both a tougher form of football and the tougher academic requirements of college.
3rd Dec 2017
Wrath of the Titans (2012)
Question: Even though Hades is now mortal and powerless, why wouldn't Perseus kill him to avenge Spyros and his adopted family?
Answer: The easiest explanation is that would make Perseus a murderer. He's a good, just, heroic man and killing a defenseless person for revenge would be completely out of character for him.
21st Nov 2018
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Question: How is it that Han joins the empire at the beginning of Solo, and at the end Darth Maul appears in a hologram when Maul was killed in Phantom Menace, long before the rise of the empire and storm trooper army.
Answer: Not sure of the first question; This movie begins about 10 years before Episode 4. By then, the Empire is relying on conscripted soldiers as the Empire expands. Han simply enlists. For the second question, the answer is in the Clone Wars TV series: Maul didn't actually die, and even replaced his legs with cybernetic limbs.
Even this being true, Darth Maul was still killed by the end of the Clone Wars, which was still before the rise of the Empire, so being alive at the end and the Empire enlistment at the beginning does not fit with the timeline.
Answer: Official canon (Clone Wars TV show especially) establishes that Maul survived his encounter with Obi-Wan and comes back into relevancy during the Clone Wars, running crime syndicates and initiating war on Mandalore behind the scenes. Why he's still running Crimson Dawn in Solo is very strange, since his story arc in The Clone Wars and his own comic has all of his criminal allies abandon him (which is why Darth Maul is the way he is in Rebels). It's likely an oversight but has been someone patched up by season 7 of Clone Wars.
Answer: According to expanded universe materials, Darth Maul survived his encounter with Obi Wan Kenobi in The Phantom Menace. He goes on to build his own criminal empire. He has nothing at all to do with the rise of the Empire, in fact he is something of a rival to Palpatine. Solo takes place between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope. During this time period the Empire is relying on regular enlistments to make up the bulk of their army.
30th Aug 2018
Rango (2011)
Question: Despite how loyal Rattlesnake Jake was to the mayor, why did the mayor betray and attempt to kill Jake at the end?
Answer: The mayor wanted to modernize the town, getting rid of every trace of its "old west" feel. Rattlesnake Jake, being a stereotypical gunslinger archetype, was a huge part of what the mayor was trying to eliminate.
13th Nov 2018
Final Destination 5 (2011)
Question: Is this a prequel? The end confused me. How can part 5 characters be on flight 180 from part 1?
Answer: Yes, it is a prequel to the original film.
13th Nov 2018
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: Is there anything to suggest that someone couldn't leave the grail in the cave and come back every 50 years or so to "top off" their immortality?
Answer: It doesn't appear to work that way. The power of the grail heals Henry's gunshot wound instantly and it keeps the knight looking about 80 years old. However, there is nothing in the film to suggest that simply drinking from the grail and leaving the cave actually extends your life. In fact, Henry drank from the grail and died a natural death a relatively short time later in between this film and the next.
Actually it is stated that Henry Jones Sr. died either in 1951 or 1956. So either at the age of 79 or 85 and at least 13 years after the events of the Last Crusade movie. Whilst this is not an extremely old age, there is no reason to think his life wasn't extended by the grail. Indiana himself got to a high age himself, having drunk from the grail.
I don't think the series is implying that either Jones man lived a long life due to the grail. In fact it would seem to go against the irony of the grail as presented: that it does give you eternal life but you are confined to that cave to enjoy the benefits. Maybe if they had said Henry Jones died at the age of 120 or something out of the ordinary, but they specifically state he dies at a perfectly normal, non magical age.
Well it's never stated that it gives eternal life only to the person staying in the cave either. That's what the question is about. If the healing properties of the grail work on someone who leaves the cave, there is no reason to think their life isn't extended (technically it already was in the case of Henry Jones Sr.) as well. It is possible though, since the knight looked pretty old, that the grail only heals, and that healing extends life but one has to drink from the cup frequently (like every day) in order to stay alive, whilst still getting older.
The knight does say that the grail cannot leave the seal, which is the price of immortality. He is implying that in order to reap the benefits of eternal life you must stay in the cave. The way it seems to work is that in order to extend your life in any meaningful way, you must drink from the grail often. Just leaving and coming back whenever you need a jolt would effectively make the rule about not taking the grail out of the cave meaningless. How often you need to drink is of course not specified. In order for the film's ironic message about the grail to make any kind of sense, you would need to drink from the grail so often you would effectively be stuck in the cave. Possibly drinking from it every day. In which case, like the knight you would just live at the cave and never leave. The knight's brothers both left 150 years after finding the grail, but one of them died shortly after leaving, never making it out of the desert. So with regards to the original question: "can you just come back every 50 years or so?"; it would make the most sense based on what we see in the movie, what we know about how long Henry Jones Sr. Lived, what we know about the knights and how long they lived, and the message the movie is saying about the irony of the grail that the answer to that particular question is "No."
I wonder if someone were to bring a large storage vessel to the cave, and fill it using the Grail, if they could then take that water with them and drink it later... Man, the scientist in me really wants to resolve this.
Drinking from the grail is not the same as pouring water out of it into another vessel. Drinking from the grail is symbolic and there is no real power that it bestows upon the water in it. However, if the grail was able to pass the properties to another vessel, one would have to assume the temple would collapse on itself when attempting to take the secondary vessel out.
Answer: It's stated by the ancient knight that the Grail's powers do not extend into the outside world. He himself was immortal only because he remained at the site, drinking the water, for hundreds of years. Henry Senior was instantly healed on-site, but he and Indy continued to age normally once they left the site.
Then why didn't Henry's wound return when he left? Their healing extended their lives. It got rid of any bad cells, to go scientific.
Because cell deterioration due to aging happens spontaneously, i.e. you've got to keep removing the bad cells. Bullet wounds are not spontaneous...once it's gone, it's gone.
Why would his wound return? He was instantly healed. From that point forward he was in normal health, even after crossing the seal. Indy actually drank from the Grail, which meant he was immortal for a few minutes, but his immortality did not follow him beyond the seal.
It's the difference between believing the power of immortality comes from the cup or staying in the cave. The knight was immortal because he kept drinking from the cup, not because he stayed in the cave. The cup has healing powers, and simply growing old is not the reason for death, regenerating cells will keep you alive, so if the cup regenerates cells, you are immortal from drinking from it, as long as you do it regularly. That's how the knight has done it and why he looks old and is frail. Going outside doesn't negate the powers of the cup, or Henry's wound would have returned. Therefor, going back often to drink from the cup will extend your life. It will cure you from any ailments that accompany old age like heart disease, cancer and brain degeneration.
The Grail Knight plainly says: "You have chosen...wisely. But, beware: the Grail cannot pass beyond the Great Seal, for that is the boundary, and the price, of immortality." Therefore, you remain immortal as long as you don't cross the seal. If you are healed instantly inside the boundary of the Great Seal, then you are healed. Period. It's not just a magic bandaid that disappears if you cross the seal.
13th Nov 2018
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: They didn't make it out of the cave with the grail because they dawdled... I wonder, would someone be able to make it out running at a dead sprint once they crossed the seal? And if so, does that mean that they're home free? Or would disaster follow them outside of the cave?
Answer: The implication is that disaster would follow them outside of the cave as well. It wouldn't make much sense if you could simply outrun the disaster.
"Followed by disaster" is a kind of curse, a thing not common in Christianity. It doesn't make much sense anyhow. A seal is just a dot - OK, so let's at least grant that the seal represents a circle that the grail has to stay in. Who decided where those borders are? The grail was taken there during the first crusade. That was closer to 1938 than it was to 33 AD. The three knights could move the grail about then. Why not afterwards? The knights could have built the traps. But the borders could only have been set by god, in an unusually late and completely atypical miracle.
There are several examples of curses in the Christian Bible: Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at Sodom, the plagues visited upon Egypt, Adam and Eve are cursed for eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, etc. The knights did not move the grail around after finding it, they stayed in the temple for 150 years and then two left leaving the third behind. The great seal and it's restriction was already in place when the knights got there.
Where in the movie is that stated? I interpreted the knight's story as them having made that place. Looks like it isn't actually specified. But if God made it, then I submit that he would have used Greek, not Latin, for the stepping stones. (All of those curses are from the old testament. The book where god kills firstborn children as long as they're Egyptian. Grail is by definition new testament where you turn the other cheek. There simply are no curses in the gospel, that's just not how Jesus rolled).
The tests were made by the knights, but the seal had God's power in it. Just like the cup.
It's still a bit dodgy. What if you take a shovel and dig yourself a back door? Basically this film really excels at stuff that makes no sense but helps the storytelling, or to be precise, creates dramatic effects.
Every fictional story is like that in some way. That's why it's called fictional. It's just a story.
Not a particularly convincing argument, "stuff happens for no reason all the time", if I may say so. Why is this website even here then? The fact is that some stories are more coherent than others. (♫ "In olden days, a hole in the plot, would seem to matter, quite a lot. Now heaven knows, anything goes..." ♫);).
It's the difference in what story they want told. Is it a fairy tale or based on actual events? A huge difference in plausibility between the two. The site is there to look at mistakes, not how believable the story is.
It is not set in another universe so plausibility isn't somehow suspended. Maybe take a look at the categories recognised by this website. Plot holes, factual errors, even stupidity. (They? Who are they?).
It is set in a fictional universe because it's not a true story. With "they" I mean the writers/director. Mistakes in a plot (plot holes) have nothing to do with how believable the story is. As long as it's plausible, it's not a mistake.
Pretty sure it's the same universe, just with some added characters/events. What about the total lack of spaceships or orcs or talking animals for example? The seal business is not a mistake YET, but it's very dodgy because no-one knows how it works or why. Like all Indys "trapped" secret places, it's (among other things) unclear who resets the traps for the next visitor. We can't brush it ALL off as "the hand of god" every time.
Huge amounts of stuff in films isn't exhaustively explained. Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that's perfectly believable. There's zero evidence either way to say how "followed by disaster" would manifest, and just because there's not a thorough explanation doesn't mean that it's "dodgy", and it's not worth bickering about either, because there's no concrete answer either way.
OK but I would like to note that not everyone who offers creative explanations has recently seen the movie; some people just invent their own. E.g. "followed by disaster" is not an actual explanation from the movie, it was just one of the suggestions made here and only here. Or the ones on my own question below. All I'm saying is, it's very hard to tell what the "rules" / "logic" of this place are supposed to be, so I understand what the OP was driving at.
3rd Jun 2013
The Karate Kid (1984)
Question: Why wasn't Johnny disqualified for his own "illegal contact to the knee" like Bobby was? We know the ref saw it happen because he gave Johnny a warning. Never made sense to me.
Answer: The answer makes no sense since Johnny caught the leg and purposely rams the elbow into the back of the knee. There was no accident about it. Even the ref acknowledged this.
Chosen answer: Johnny attacked an illegal area which the rules accept may happen accidentally and so they have provisions for warnings and such in light of that possibility, whereas Bobby performed an illegal technique which cannot happen accidentally, and therefore the rules call for immediate disqualification.
That wasn't an accident; Johnny deliberately elbowed the back of the knee. But having him disqualified would be a terrible ending to a great film. The warning was for plot reasons.
Answer: The movie never explains this and it always seemed like an error to me. I've always reconciled it by saying that a flying kick to an opponents knee is considered so egregious it warrants an instant disqualification, while an elbow to the knee only draws a warning. Once again, the movie never actually says this so it's only speculation but it does make some sort of sense if you think about it.
Answer: I always took it to mean that the kick Bobby did actually put Daniel in a position where he was unable to continue, and that it was a definite attempt at maliciousness (at least in the referee's eyes), whereas Johnny's attack might have simply been an accident. Look when Bobby kicked Daniel's knee-the fight just started, and it wasn't an accident. When Johnny connected (Up to this point Johnny fought fairly and within the rules) they were in the middle of a match, and Johnny simply hit him illegally without intending to. When I used to train and fight in tournaments, I once got punched across the jaw by an opponent who got a warning. When he did it a second time a few seconds later, he was disqualified. It wasn't something that appeared malicious, it was just in the heat of the moment of the fight. Bobby's act wasn't, which is why he got disqualified. Johnny could have been in the heat of the moment, which is why he only got a warning. If he hit the knee again, he would have been disqualified.
5th Nov 2018
The Sandlot (1993)
Question: At the end of the movie, it shows Benny managing to steal home, being called safe, the catcher arguing that Benny was out and the umpire saying Benny was safe. In slow motion, it shows the catcher catching the ball and tagging Benny as he slides into home so why wasn't Benny called out?
Answer: The umpire got the call wrong in that case. It happens all the time in real life. It wasn't allowed back then, but now Major League Baseball and other sports leagues will use instant replay to make sure they get close calls right.
Answer: The catcher tags Benny on the chest after he touches home plate with his left hand. Safe.
Answer: The film shows Benny beating the tag. Although the ball gets there before Benny, the catcher tags Benny a split second after his hand touches home plate.
5th Nov 2018
Breakdown (1997)
Question: Why were they even kidnapping people in the first place? The ransom seemed like it wasn't planned and they only did it when they discovered that Jeff was rich. So if there is no ransom usually, why even kidnap couples to begin with? If it's just to rob them, then that doesn't seem very lucrative for the risk.
Answer: There was always a ransom, or at least that was always the intent. Anyone that didn't have money the kidnappers would just eliminate them. The kidnappers MO was to take a couple and force one of them to empty their bank accounts. Earl makes it clear that the difference in Jeff's case is that they were unable to kidnap the pair at the same time. For whatever reason, Jeff refused to get in the truck with Red, which caused the kidnappers to alter their plans slightly. Earl also gives some insight into how the group chooses their victims. He tells Jeff that he was targeted because he was driving a brand new SUV, which indicated he must have a fair amount of money in the bank. The kidnappers care very little about being caught, they have obviously committed many murders without being found out. They seem to leave very little evidence of their crimes for the police to find. Red is always several steps ahead of the police and is brazen enough to kidnap a man's wife and say directly to him in front of a police officer that the man must have him mistaken for someone else.
5th Nov 2018
Storks (2016)
Question: When masses of babies are made, where do the letters come from? Don't parents know the storks don't deliver babies anymore?
Answer: The movie implies that even though the storks stopped delivering babies, people still continued to write letters asking for new babies. The storks simply archived all the letters rather than destroy them.
8th Feb 2018
Silent Hill: Revelation (2012)
Question: Towards the end of the film, Heather steals the Seal from inside of Leonard, and we see him burn up. But the shot goes noticeably out of focus when this happens. What gives? The scene appears to be CG, so it makes no sense for it to go so badly out of focus. Were they just trying to cover up a dodgy effect?
Answer: I believe your theory is correct, it appears to go out of focus to help cover up some unconvincing CGI. The final explosion looks very cartoonish.
10th Jun 2018
Unstoppable (2010)
Question: When Gilleese sees the brake hoses are disconnected, why doesn't he just connect them there and then?
Answer: For intra-yard movements the automatic air brakes are supposed to be disconnected. The independent brake is what Dewey applied and is what is shown slipping out moments after he exits the train.
9th Oct 2018
Ready Player One (2018)
Question: Why was Sorrento's avatar's eyes glowing yellow when he first sees Irock then turn blue after he sighs? Was this a reference to Superman's heat vision? I don't get it. Does his Clark Kent looking avatar have those powers?
Answer: Sorrento's avatar's eyes are an indication of his mood. Blue is calm, but they flare yellow or orange the more agitated, upset, alarmed or angry he is. They only go completely red once - just before he sets off the Cataclyst.
Answer: Ironically, in a movie full of pop culture references in nearly every scene, this particular thing does not seem to be a direct reference to anything in particular. If this was supposed to be an indication of Superman's heat vision the color of the eyes would most certainly have been red, the color that is almost universally used for Superman's heat vision. The eyes seem to be yellow while Sorrento is in shadow and blue when he is not. Either that or the eyes just change color at random for no apparent reason other than Sorrento thinks it looks cool.
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: Luke took them from the Millennium Falcon and gave them to Leia. He wasn't actually there, and was instead a force-projection. When he died and his projection disappeared, so did the illusion of the dice that he had brought with him.
Luke disappears well before the charm. Also, the charm had a physical presence (I.E. you could pick them up) whereas Luke did not.
Luke didn't disappear "well before" the charm. The scene of his death plays out first for the audience but his disappearance and the disappearance of the dice were supposed to be concurrent. It's also not entirely true that Luke didn't have a physical presence. He holds Leia's head and kisses her physically. Presumably he could choose what was physical and what was not and chose to not have a physical presence when he dueled Kylo Ren. This is further evidenced throughout the film when Kylo Ren's hand gets wet from the rain after "force Skyping" with Rey and later on when the two are able to physically touch.
BaconIsMyBFF