Question: Why does everyone love Gaston? I can kinda see why from his looks/biceps but is there another reason why they love him so much?
lionhead
3rd Jun 2015
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Answer: I would say he was admired rather than loved and for very superficial reasons. He is young, handsome, manly, and extroverted. People often admire and wish for those traits. They project other non-existent qualities onto such a person while blind to their flaws. In Gaston's case, he is arrogant and self-absorbed. It is very typical of our society to celebrate people for their physical attributes, even though they may lack integrity in other areas of their lives.
I'd have to disagree. The film takes place in the 1790s to early 1800s if you ignore the Eiffel tower in Be Our Guest. So not long after the revolution at all. The peasantry was suffering quite a bit of food insecurity, which we see reflected in the opening song, (the eggs are too expensive, the bread is stale, etc.) Gaston is a hunter, and he's able to provide for his village which might otherwise have suffered a bit. I'd argue that his super-inflated ego may be a result of the praise he rightly earned.
6th Oct 2020
Back to the Future (1985)
Trivia: The town hall building is also seen in the Voyagers TV show.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The Town Hall building is in over 100 movies and TV shows since it is a building in Courthouse Square at Universal Studios. It has also appeared in Gremlins, The Twilight Zone, To Kill a Mockingbird, Knight Rider, Leave It To Beaver, Parenthood, Saving Mr. Banks, and Psycho II, to name some of a few of the more commonly known. I don't think its common appearance makes this trivia relevant.
I'd say it makes it more relevant. Just add the multiple appearances of the building.
24th Oct 2018
Toy Story 3 (2010)
Question: How come Andy didn't give his old toys to Molly?
Answer: More than likely she didn't want them. Besides Barbie the toys never really speak of Molly at all, so it's likely she rarely ever played with them, if at all.
Answer: Then why does Andy have Mrs. Potatohead? From what I remember Molly got Mrs. Potatohead for Christmas at the end of the first movie so shouldn't she belong to Molly?
It is suggested Molly hardly played with Mrs. Potato Head and she was kept alongside Mr. Potato Head in Andy's room since then. The rest of Andy's toys are mostly "boy" toys, so Molly may well not be interested in them anyway.
Either Andy borrowed or even kept it in case Molly didn't need it or want it.
27th Aug 2001
Independence Day (1996)
Corrected entry: When Russell Casse says that he was taken by aliens years before, everyone reacts with tired groans. We know there are aliens, so why not believe him? He makes specific claims that can be easily verified simply by looking at what is going on in the world and he provides detailed information that could only be gained through personal experience. Given the desperate situation humanity is in they would definitely want to talk to him to see what they can find out about the attacking aliens. (01:43:55)
Correction: He makes specific claims that can be easily verified simply by looking at what is going on in the world. Given the desperate situation humanity is in they would definitely want to talk to him to see what they can find out about the attacking aliens. What have they got to lose?
He is just one of thousands, tens of thousands of people that claim to have been abducted and all have different stories, evidence, information and 99% of it is probably useless. So it will be a huge waste of time to start to believe all these people and interrogate them.
Correction: Russell looks like any number of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, these people are tired of that. Some may also have seen him drunk on TV and thought he was out of his mind. No mistake.
8th Feb 2018
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Question: In the radar site scene, after Miller lets Steamboat Willie free, Reiben wants to leave the mission, and Horvath is holding his gun on him, Jackson also pulls his gun on Horvath, his superior. Nobody seems to care about it. Doesn't it count as a serious violation of military law or something?
Answer: It certainly does, not only on Reiben's part but also Horvath's. However, Capt. Miller was in no place to arrest or write up anybody as they were behind enemy lines and thus, no Allied Military Police to place anybody in custody, he even offered Reiben the option to put in for transfer. Miller understood the men's frustration with the mission and the loss of Wade and Caparzo, so instead of citing orders like he did after Caparzo was killed, decided to defuse the situation by inquiring about the men's pool on what he did as a civilian, then telling them. It worked, as Horvath and Reiben lowered their weapons and calmed the other men.
What about the fact that the soldiers in the movie are shown cursing a lot. Wouldn't that also be in violation of military law?
Maybe in the ultra-PC world of today, but certainly not WW2. I separated from service nearly 20 years ago, but can definitely say it was almost against regs NOT to swear.
What is the ultra PC world?
PC means Political Correct.
Read UCMJ article 134.
No. Swearing is fine in the US Military. It's very common. When I was in there I heard at least 1 F Bomb almost every 2 minutes.
24th Feb 2004
Labyrinth (1986)
Question: Can anyone explain the riddle the two guards tell Sarah (before she falls down into the helping hands). I know there's a certain question you can ask and the answer helps you figure out which door it is. can anyone help?
Answer: It is the same as multiplying. Two positives or two negatives make a positive and a mixture of positive Lets say right door and negative left door will always return a negative answer. To simplify further lets call the one door -X and the other door +X. -X (X) = -X So when done this way the answer you get back is always the negative. Then to switch polarity you just multiply by -1. Or for the more vocal learners out there the friend (+) of my friend (+) is my friend (+). The friend (+) of my enemy (-) is my enemy (-) and lastly the enemy (-) of my enemy (-) is my friend (+) or to explain with the doors The Liar and The truth Teller Produce/tell a lie when you have one answer for the other (multiply thier values). So you know the answer is the polar opposite or inverse value.
Answer: One Guard always lies, and one always tells the truth. This is absolute. So when Sarah asks Guard A to tell her what Guard B would say, she knows it will be a lie, no matter what. If Guard A were the liar, he would have to lie about what Guard B would have said. Since Guard B would have told the truth, Guard A would then have to tell the lie to Sarah. However, if Guard B were the liar, he would obviously have lied. However, Guard A would then have to answer the question truthfully which would be the lie from Guard B. Hence, no matter which guard is the liar and which guard is the truth-teller, the answer that Sarah gets would have one and exactly one lie in the answer. Knowing this, Sarah takes the other road.
Answer: I still don't understand how Sarah's logic isn't incredibly flawed. Both guards can say yes or no depending where the right door is and I don't understand how she reached a decision with this in mind.
She figures out that the red guard is the truth teller because the blue guard saying the door behind Red leads to the castle truthfully is impossible since if that's true that would mean Red is lying but said the truth. So, Blue saying the door behind Red is to the castle has to be a lie, so that's the liar and the door behind Blue is to the castle. Basically she asks Red if Blue is the liar, and he said yes, which can only be the truth because a no would mean he is the liar but tells the truth about that. He can't answer no. In both cases (either the liar or the truth teller) the Yes means that the door behind Red is not to the castle.
In no way does Sarah figure out which guard is the truth teller. She just forced the guard she spoke with to give her an answer that contains a lie. She didn't ask the guard which way she should go. She asked the guard what the other guard's answer would be. The liar would lie about what the truth teller would say, hence it would be a lie. And the truth teller would accurately report that the liar would lie, hence the answer would be a lie. Try it out with two of your friends. Have the two of them decide on one to tell the truth and one to lie, unless you change her question or one of them gets confused and answers incorrectly, the answer to your question would have to be a lie no matter who you spoke with.
No it's more specific than that. She asked one guard if the other guard would say if this door would lead to the castle. That's different than asking one guard if the other guard would answer with a lie.
I never said she asked if the other guard would answer with a lie. She asked a question that by its very structure has to be answered with a lie. She guaranteed that the answer would be a lie and then took the other door.
No, again, it's more complicated than that. I was wrong about one thing though, she doesn't know who is the truth teller and who the liar is but she asked a question in such a way that it doesn't matter. The question she asks is indirect, she asks it in a way that both the truthteller and the liar would give the same answer. The Yes being the truth means the other door is to the castle, the yes being a lie would also mean the other door is to the castle. It is true she doesn't find out of who the liar and who the truth teller is, she only figures out which door to pick. In her logic she does conclude that the Red one is the truthteller but in reality she doesn't know that. But she is not wrong about which door to pick.
16th Oct 2009
Jurassic Park (1993)
Corrected entry: When they first arrive at the park, they see a brachiosaur feeding on the leaves of a tree. When the dino gets on its hind legs to get a hold of the top branch, it could've easily reached the top branch without taking the extreme energy to lift itself. This counteracts anything that would naturally happen but is used to make the impressive landing that it makes coming down.
Correction: Unless you'd care to provide full and factual details of your studies into real-life brachiosaur feeding habits, this is based purely on an opinion, which are not considered valid grounds for a mistake.
While rearing up is at least PLAUSIBLE for most sauropods as the majority of their weight was carried on their hind legs. This is not the case for Brachiosaurs, their skeletal anatomy just doesn't support it. The greater length and robust build for the forelimbs indicates that their weight distribution was much further forward than in a sauropod like say Diplodocus. While it cannot be stated 100% that a Brachiosaurus could not rear up, it would be extremely difficult, and likely carry a high risk of injury for the animal. sources: Evolution and extinction of the dinosaurs Cambridge university press Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: Understanding the life of giants Indiana Univerity press.
The book is about studies of real fossils. In JP there were genetically engineered monsters. There could have been differences compared to true dinosaurs.
Well since this movie came out before those books did all this information is irrelevant. It's all artistic license.
21st Oct 2003
Back to the Future (1985)
Corrected entry: When Marty escapes the Libyans at the Twin Pines Mall, hits 88mph and ends up in Old Man Peabody's barn, driving in through a large opening in the barn before crashing. However, the cut to the inside of the barn shows no form of entry other than the closed doors the family are entering. In addition the inside of the barn is very small compared to the outside view. (00:30:10 - 00:31:55)
Correction: He doesn't enter the barn where the family enters the barn. He enters through the back of the barn and goes all the way through, hence why the family are facing the lights from the door they enter through, not the back of the car.
Actually there are no openings behind the car when the Peabodys enter so he couldn't have gone through.
The car spun 45 degrees when it enters the barn and comes to a stop. They enter it through the side so what you see behind the car is the other side of the barn, not the back (or front whatever you want) where he came in, that's on the right side of the car.
21st Sep 2020
X-Men: First Class (2011)
Question: If Magneto didn't kill Shaw, what would they have done? It seems like killing him was the only possible way to stop him.
Answer: Charles wanted to incapacitate Shaw and all he needed to do this was to get the helmet off. Once the helmet is off Charles could freeze Shaw and they could figure out a way to hold him. With no helmet Shaw is very little threat (if at all) to Charles. Erik kills a defenseless man unnecessarily.
Actually Xavier says that he can only control this man for so long. Meaning he was struggling keeping him frozen like that. They didn't have forever. An option for Xavier could have been to release Shaw once he knew what Erik was going to do but that could cause Shaw to go nuclear on the spot and kill everyone.
Yes, he could only hold him for so long but instead of taking the opportunity to incapacitate/capture him, Erik steals the helmet, gloats, and then slowly pushes a coin through his head.
I'm not sure what the actual plan was. Charles freezing was the only thing preventing Shaw from killing everyone. Even if Erik manages to wrap Shaw into something, as soon as his mind is free he will be able to use his abilities. He killed him slowly, which was unnecessary, but killing him was the only option IMHO.
3rd Sep 2020
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: Why didn't Hermione use the time turner to save Buckbeak before Scabbers bit Ron, since she had it on her?
Answer: They needed to make it look like Buckbeak had escaped by himself. If they had freed him earlier, the Ministry of Magic would have believed that Hagrid deliberately released him, and held him accountable. They freed Buckbeak while Dumbledore and Fudge were inside Hagrid's hut so that the Ministry would know Hagrid was with them when Buckbeak "escaped" and Hagrid could not be blamed.
I'm not sure if I explained myelf properly. What I mean is, when Hermione was crying on Ron's shoulder, why not she just tell them about the time turner then instead of crying? Or just go back in time herself.
She's not allowed to tell anyone about the time turner. It's only after the events in the shack, when things are a lot more dire, does Dumbledore basically give permission for her to use it. She also had to sign to say she wouldn't use it for anything other than it's intended use. Saving 1 Hippogriff is not worth the risk of being caught.
I know she can't tell anyone but like I said, she could have done it on her own. Then they wouldn't know.
She can't mess with it and use it to do things on her own without approval. She was given it to be able to attend more classes and was specifically told not to use it otherwise.
29th Jan 2005
Titanic (1997)
Corrected entry: When Jack is playing poker in the beginning of the movie with the Swedish guys and Fabrizio we can see a short shot of his cards. He then takes another card and wins by having a full house. However, there was no way to get a full house with the cards he had by just drawing one more card. (00:22:50)
Correction: You must have missed the part where he trades two cards with Sven (the one Swedish guy) before picking up the single card. Thus, it is possible to get a full house.
They didn't trade cards, even discards 1 card and Jack gives him a card off the top of the deck. They were playing 5 card draw. I don't know any form of poker that involves trading, unless 2 people are cheating.
That's the whole point of the scene - Jack and Sven are cheating.
No they are not. If you pause you can see he has the right cards. No cheating.
The cheating comment doesn't even make sense because Sven is playing against Jack and Sven loses. Plus, you're suggesting 2 people cheated over the table in plain sight of the 2 other players. In the scene, Jack is the dealer and the deck is to his left. When he gives 2 cards, they come from the deck and he takes the 2 cards and discards them next to the deck. Jack doesn't trade his own cards with anyone. He again gives 1 card from the deck and discards the 1 card. Then he takes his 1 card (which gives him the full house. Which is kind of pointless because his 2 pair was already the best hand).
8th Sep 2006
The Rock (1996)
Factual error: Atropine is on two occasions in the movie stated to offer some kind of protection against corrosive gasses. First, against the nerve agent/gas Goodspeed encounters in the beginning of the movie, which is corrosive enough to eat through a protective suit. Secondly, near the end of the movie against the cloud of VX gas; here Goodspeed injects Atropine into his heart and survives without a scratch even though it is stated that VX will melt your skin. While Atropine is used to counter the effect of nerve agents, Atropine (or any other drug invented by man) wouldn't do anything against a gas that can eat through a protective suit or dissolve skin. In this case the muscle contractions created by the nerve agent would be the least of your worries.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He is outside and the gas is not in an enclosed space like in the beginning of the movie.
I think the error refers to the general effect of the gas versus the protection the Atropine gives. It can't protect from the corrosive effects.
Simple. The VX isn't what was eating their suits. It was a corrosive aerosol gas the baby doll sprayed from it's mouth.
I don't think that's correct, we will have to get confirmation from the creator of the movie.
24th Jan 2008
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Corrected entry: Malfoy used the Imperius curse on Madam Rosmerta to have her deliver the cursed necklace to a Hogwarts student. If Hogsmead is "outside of school" and Malfoy was underaged at the time, shouldn't the Ministry investigate the use of an Unforgivable Curse so close to Hogwarts? And if so, wouldn't they have found out that Rosmerta was cursed?
Correction: The way I understand it, the phrase "outside of school" refers to when students are in the Muggle world during the summer. Since Hogsmeade is an entirely wizarding village, I would think that while the Ministry certainly would investigate the matter, it would be difficult for them to ascertain who specifically performed the curse; there are sixteen groups of underage students (3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th years, from four Houses) who are allowed to visit the village.
True. but in book 2, the ministry knows what type of magic has been performed in the Dursley's house (by Dobby), as all the underaged have the trace on them. Therefore, the ministry MUST know that an Imperius curse (an unforgivable curse!) has been shot in the village at that moment in book 6. Since performing it on a human being can send you to Azkaban for life, the ministry should have investigated the matter thoroughly AND informed the headmaster of Hogwarts. When Draco is explaining things, it seems as if Dumbledore would never have guessed someone in the village was under the Imperius curse.
According to the wiki the trace is lifted whilst the students are attending Hogwarts. They can use magic freely then, this include the Hogwarts express at least so it's not unlikely Hogsmead counts as well. It is put back again during holidays, but not weekends. It is also true that muggle born children like Hermione and Harry are more closely monitored than one with a wizard family like Draco, since magic happens around him a lot more often. Next to that, if they do notice him using magic they might investigate but then find out he is the son of Lucius Malfoy and drop the case anyway because they fear him.
6th Sep 2020
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Question: Is this movie in the same universe as Reservoir Dogs? If it is, it would mean Mr Orange has a twin brother, who talks with a British accent for some reason. If it isn't, it would mean Vic and Vincent Vega aren't related.
Answer: Short answer, yes, they're in the same universe. Tarantino has stated his films exist in two different universes. Basically a "real universe" and a "movie universe." Most (if not all) of his films are all set in this same "real universe" (like RD and PF) while some films, like "Kill Bill" and "Dusk to Dawn", appear in a special movie universe within the "real" universe (meaning they're actual movies that exist in the "real" universe). Some speculate that Mr. Orange was Pumpkin after he turned his life around and that PF is a prequel to RD. Although Pumpkin was called Ringo and not Freddy.
1st Sep 2020
Dune (1984)
Question: Is there any reason they can't introduce sand worms to other planets in the Duniverse, there to proliferate and produce a greater, more widely distributed quantity of the spice? The newborn worms are called sandtrout, by virtue of being more or less the size of such. Should be easy enough therefore to capture some, surround them with sand in the spaceship to imitate their homeworld, and take them to some other planet the Empire is willing to give up for any other use, then let them grow and produce spice? Much greater abundance, much surer supply (the proverbial eggs in one basket), much closer at hand for any other world in the Universe?
Answer: In the books people were trying this with no success, at least by the end of book 3 which is as far as I got. The implication was there was a complex eco-balance needed which they were failing to achieve. It is a big part of book 3 that the smugglers were capturing the sand trout and selling them to offworlders, since this is how Leto II got them to perform his metamorphosis. Perhaps in later books they succeeded at starting another location.
Isn't it so they only discovered the sandworms were the source for the spice by the time Leto II takes charge and turns into one? After which he turns Arrakis into a paradise with only a small patch for sandworms to produce spice in.
31st Aug 2020
Total Recall (1990)
Other mistake: When Quaid goes through the x-ray machine the first time, the person behind the man with the dog isn't shown to be carrying anything (there's no purple object shown). But then later the purple object is seen.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Could simply be someone else with an item passing the person without any. He was walking very slow and certainly 1 person passed him, could be another one did as well.
Two people would have had to pass him and there's nothing to indicate 2 additional people were walking that much faster than him, or close to him.
They were off camera before. 1 person definitely did pass him so a second person doing the same is not unlikely.
They weren't off screen long enough.
I've seen this part multiple times. Who you see behind Quaid before entering the machine is first a woman with a handbag, then a man with mustache and case, then a blind man with a dog, after him a woman with a handbag again and more people. Now, the man with the mustache and case and the second woman with the handbag probably paused before entering the machine because we don't see them when Quaid passes, only the first woman with a bag, then a blind man with a dog and then a man with nothing. So both must have then sped up and then passed the man holding nothing. You see them walking faster than the others too. Not illogical when people are rushing to work or home either.
31st Aug 2020
X-Men 2 (2003)
Stupidity: The prison where Magneto is held should have had a contingency plan just in case of escape, like machine guns outside the cell, or tranquilizer darts, or gas.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: What good would machine guns and tranquilizer darts be against a man who can literally control and manipulate metal? As for gas, the area outside the cell is so large that any gas would quickly dissipate before it could be effective.
11th Mar 2020
Midway (2019)
Factual error: When we see the scene at Coral Sea, with the carrier Lexington sinking in the background. The filmmakers showed a Yorktown-class carrier sinking instead of the very different Lexington-class.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This not true, the Yorktown class had a much different island than the Lexington class and you can see it's a Lexington class shown from the starboard side, at an angle, with 2 separate towers (funnel and bridge) instead of 1 like on the Yorktown.
There are 3 Yorktown class carriers in the scene whereas the Lexington and Yorktown were the only American carriers to participate in the battle. Also, the sinking carrier is a Yorktown Class Carrier. The island is not split between the funnel and control tower, the hanger is an open style hanger and the bow is open under the flight deck. The Lexington had a closed hanger and a closed bow.
The USS Enterprise under Halsey arrived after the battle for assistance. That's why you see 3 carriers. You see the ship sink at an angle so you can't tell if the funnel and control tower are split. I do agree about the open bow though. There are some differences, but both ships looked very similar.
2nd Apr 2018
The Green Mile (1999)
Question: Just before Del's execution, Paul realises that the sponge is dry because there's no water on the floor. Why didn't he halt the execution before the switch was thrown? If he had, Del wouldn't have suffered an agonizing death.
Answer: It was only 15 seconds between when Paul first sees what doesn't look right until the switch is thrown. He was spending most of that time looking at the rest of the floor and Edward's head to see if he could see wetness, which only left about two to four seconds from when he probably was actually concerned until the switch was thrown. The ceremony is obviously very structured, and if he halted it at the last second it would be a major issue so if he did and nothing was wrong there would be hell to pay so he probably trusted (poorly) that he was mistaken rather than take the risk. There is also an attitude of not getting your coworkers in trouble so stopping the execution would also go against that - the trouble of an execution with a dry sponge is a counterargument that probably didn't dawn on him in the couple seconds in which the decision had to be made.
He could have take the bucket and doused Del's head. This would have resolved the dry sponge issue immediately.
That's a terrible idea. He could get others wet including himself and electrocute them.
Answer: They all had pistols. In Last of the Mohicans Hawkeye shoots the British officer being burned alive to spare him the suffering. You'd think these guys would have thought to do the same.
It is shown in great detail how precise and professional the guards are during an execution, and how seriously they take it. There is simply no scenario where any of the guards would have taken out their service weapon and used it on Del in a room full of people.
14th Aug 2020
Predator 2 (1990)
Question: What was a Predator doing in L.A.? Why not stick with the jungle?
Answer: There's really no reason for it not to. Predators are hunters that hunt for both sport and for honor. It likely saw hunting humans in an urban setting (especially one as chaotic as LA is portrayed in the film) as a potential greater challenge, and thus a greater reward.
Note: Cities are sometimes compared to jungles. So for the predator there is hardly a difference.
Answer: The Predator kills humans for sport and wants to kill as many as possible (for fun and status). There is "critical mass" in cities (urban areas are heavily/densely populated) but relatively few people live in or are found in jungles. The Predator went where he was most likely to encounter MANY people and thereby maximize his head count. (Why spend all day waiting to see if you can find a human in the jungle when you know there are hundreds of thousands - even millions - of people in major cities/urban areas?).
Answer: I believe the reason was, it was looking for the ultimate challenge. In the first movie, it was the first time they had ever been defeated. They considered humans nothing more than animals to be hunted for sport. Now humans had evolved to the point, where they learn to fight back. So the Predators went to the city looking for someone who was smart, tough and shows no fear. He was studying Danny Glover, following him and taunting him.
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: I get the impression that Gaston comes from a family with some amount of wealth and social status - maybe not royalty, but perhaps more wealth and status than most people in the town have. Also, despite being vain and arrogant, he is bold and somewhat cunning. Many people like to latch on to a "leader" type.