Question: Is there a reason why when they're in the past they can't catch up with the present, but when they land a little into the future, the present can catch up with them? Are they not moving along on their own timeline? And if not, why are they not left in that moment and stand there to see the present come and go without taking them?
Question: After Brian and the others escape the Bangor airport and are on their way back to LA, before they get to the time rip, Brian says to Nick that he wanted kids and she didn't and he did "something that he never thought he'd do" and that he always wanted to tell her sorry. What was that thing he did that was so bad, there is no mention of what he did unless he is talking about the divorce. Could someone please clarify this?
Answer: In the book he slaps her across the face during a heated argument. I can only assume that is what he is talking about.
Question: What happened to the people who disappeared? Did they die?
Answer: Yes, the passengers who were awake through the time rift were killed instantly, including Nick Hopewell on the return trip.
Hey you can't really assume anything with a film like this and with a storyline being so mysterious and suspenseful. I think it is left up to one's imagination where the passengers disappeared too. Personally I think or would like to believe they all survived but in another dimension probarly in the 4 or 5th dimension like with the Bermuda triangle which is very similar to the movie in relation to people disappearing without a trace.
Actually, since items like pacemakers were left behind it's safe to assume at least some of the missing passengers are dead.
I assume that since some passengers who disappeared left behind their pacemakers, they probably died.
Answer: No, they didn't die. The premise of the story is that the sleeping plane passengers were in an alternate timeline a few minutes out-of-sync with normal time; so, when they awoke, they were aware of a dead zone in the immediate past. Everyone else in the world is still alive in the present. The "Langoliers" were interdimensional creatures that fed on the past, gobbling it up like a stage-cleaning crew.
Question: Are the creatures we actually witness, eating up the LAX airport, actually Langoliers? I have heard from friends who have read the book that they are not Langoliers. Also Mr. Toomy's description of them (he says they have legs and are hairy) doesn't hold up. Are they Langoliers? If not, what are they? And if not, why do the characters refer to them as Langoliers?
Chosen answer: The Langoliers don't exist, they are Toomey's version of the boogeyman. The creatures that "eat" the past are close enough to what Craig believes that he thinks they are the Langoliers. And it's as good as anything else to call them, so all the others adopt the name as well. No one could actually know what they are called as most people move into the future along with the natural flow of time and the few that do travel into the past are eventually killed by them.
Question: Why did the people's stuff (loose change, watches, purses, and a wig etc) stay on the plane, but their clothes were all gone? They may explain it in the movie, but I was reading the novella and didn't notice an answer. If it had something to do with being worn, wouldn't the wig have left too?
Answer: Stephen King is notorious for writing such elements as "haphazard, random, slightly without strict order", and I do not know if he does this deliberately or that he focuses on the weird aspect - the pacemaker and fillings remain but other things don't. But to take the speculation farther, clothing is somewhat organic, where the other things - even the wigs, are largely not organic (though many wigs are made with real hair). I just think King prefers this touch of random. I do, too. If you read the Tommyknockers he refers to the way the townspeople "become" and they do very haphazard, illogical things. Also this: For King, excessive order is often equated with evil. The Langoliers were described as "all about purpose." Randall Flagg was all about strict rule of law, where the agencies of the Light, of God are slightly randomized, not strict to form. This is a very thought-provoking concept.
Answer: Pure speculation, but maybe anything synthetic or heavily processed stays. That might leave a vinyl purse or belt, polyester scarfs, pills, candy, and the like, but take cotton clothes. Food would be a judgement call. Makes me want to watch it again to see.
Question: Why is it that the bullet bounced off Albert chest, and didn't pierce into his skin or anything, yet the knife blade was able to enter Dinah? I never understood why the bullet did no damage to him, yet the blade did.
Chosen answer: Because as time runs down, food loses its taste, drinks lose their fizz and the gunpowder in the bullet had lost most of its explosive force. It was unable to propel the bullet very hard. The knife still retained its edge as physical objects didn't break down.
Question: This is a very open-ended question which I doubt anyone could provide a definitive answer for, but isn't it extremely convenient for the plot that the author character (played by Dean Stockwell) is able to figure out more or less everything despite the absurdity of the situation?
Chosen answer: That's just it....if he had not been on the plane, then the story would not have evolved the way it did, and we would be given a different set of events. He writes mystery novels, and it is fairly realistic that he would have figured out most of the events as they unfolded, as he likely uses similar bizarre situations for his books, and is familiar with the strange and unusual.
Question: Were the airport scenes shot on location at Bangor and LAX airports? If so, I'm curious as to find out how they achieved the effect of no-one being there. I mean, is it possible to desert a whole airport for filming? I would have thought that to be rather impossible, to close the airport whilst shooting. Any help?
Chosen answer: Yes, they were at those locations. Filming with nobody around is possible, either by shooting indoor scenes at night, when the terminals are closed, or outdoor scenes on unused sections of the airport. If maintenance is going to close a runway (or a whole terminal) for a week, a film company can rent the space (at a price of course!) to keep it closed a few extra days for filming. As well, many shots can be established in real locations, but followed by filming on sets built to replicate parts of the real locations. You could film a whole movie's "setting" in an afternoon by taking select shots, then spend a couple of months in a studio on closeup shots which don't require the large, real, backgrounds.
Question: At the end when time catches up with the people from the plane they all go up against the wall to avoid being where other people might be. I assume this is because they didn't want to risk being in the same spot as another person when time caught up. My question is what would have happened with the plane on the runway? What would happen if time caught up and someone or something happened to be in that spot?
Answer: It is impossible to say because the story never explains what would happen in this specific situation.
Question: Did Dinah ever disappear after they flew through the rip? I am just wondering this because everyone who was awake was supposed to disappear, and Dinah wasn't awake, but she was never sleeping either.
Answer: They don't show this in the film, but in the novella Dinah's body does disappear.
Question: Would a toaster really knock someone unconscious if you hit someone with it, like yellow T-shirt guy did?
Answer: It's possible, if it hit a certain way and with enough force. However, movies tend to exaggerate physical altercations. For example, it's often shown how someone is repeatedly punched in the face with little effect, when in real life a person's jaw would have been broken with the first blow.
Question: In one of the scenes after Toomey stabbed Dinah, the color of her clothes changes from a saturated version of her pink outfit to a very obvious green. I was wondering if this color change was intentional, a mistake, or a request from one of the actors?
Answer: It was a continuity mistake. Whilst the characters appearances do start to look a little washed out over time, colours don't change, and if they did, pink wouldn't change into green.
Question: Was Nick supposed to kill Laurel in Boston?
Answer: He was supposed to kill a politician's girlfriend, because the politician supported the IRA, a dangerous politician who never had to see bloodshed with his own eyes. Nick couldn't kill him because they have mutual friends and this might be risky for their own interests; turning friends against them. So he was assigned to kill the girlfriend as a warning. While I've not seen the Godfather; I believe it's similar to the whole waking up with your horse's head in your bed kind of warning.
Answer: No, he was going to assassinate someone in Boston but it wasn't Laurel. It was the girlfriend of a politician in Boston who was funding the IRA.
Answer: Think of time as a gear with only one tooth, and think of them as a gear with only one notch. In the past, the one tooth has forever passed their notch and they'll never be carried along in the flow of time again. In the future, the tooth comes along, snags their notch, and they're back in the flow of time.
Phixius ★