Question: Why was Felix played by another actor in this movie?
raywest
15th Dec 2025
The Living Daylights (1987)
Chosen answer: The Living Daylights" was the first James Bond film with Timothy Dalton as Bond. The only actors from the Roger Moore era who continued their roles were Robert Brown as "M" and Desmond Llewelyn as "Q." Younger actors were cast for other familiar characters, including John Terry, who played Felix Leiter in "The Living Daylights." He followed David Hedison, who had played Leiter in "Live and Let Die" with Roger Moore. Apparently, producers felt Terry lacked sufficient chemistry with Dalton and preferred a more recognisable actor who could convey greater emotional depth. They recast Hedison as Leiter for Dalton's second (and final) Bond film, "Licence to Kill.
28th Oct 2025
Mission to Mars (2000)
Question: How, in the year 2000, did this film manage to secure a PG rating? The graphic violence of the final death shown during the vortex scene near the beginning was verging on R-rated.
Answer: There was no actual blood or graphic display.
No graphic display? A man is shown on camera being violently torn to several pieces by high G-forces, and there was indeed blood visible. There's also a scene later in the movie where shrapnel completely pierces the palm of a man's hand, complete with a zero-gravity blood spurt.
I remember watching it for the first time thinking it was a pretty graphic death scene for a PG rated film, but I think it's a stretch to say it was verging on R rated. There isn't that much blood, the guy is in a space suit, and it happens very fast. Studios can lobby the MPAA for what rating they feel the film deserves, and it is likely Disney argued for a lower rating than PG-13, and the MPAA agreed.
Well, by "verging on R-rated," I meant that even in a PG-13 film, that scene would have been pushing the envelope. I would imagine there were a lot of parents at the time who took their young children to see the new Disney film about going to Mars and were not pleased with that scene.
A PG rating does not mean family friendly. A "Parental Guidance" rating warns there may be strong language, sexual content, violence, or graphic images. No one should expect a G-rated Disney film. I watched the "twister" clip on YouTube and wouldn't say it's gruesome. It's not a close-up shot of the rapidly spinning body being pulled apart; it's rather blurred, and there wasn't much blood. I realise it's a matter of opinion regarding what is considered too violent.
Yes, but you're also an adult, and you watched the clip having an idea of what you were about to see. If you read the comments on that clip, you'll see a lot of people saying that scene traumatized them as children. Violence like that from earlier PG films is why the PG-13 rating was later invented, and it just struck me as odd that that was able to get a PG rating in the year 2000.
My point is that parents were (or should have been) aware of the PG rating before taking their children to see it and that it might be unsuitable for younger audiences. It falls upon them to make sure they do not take their children to a film that could contain disturbing scenes. By 2000, movie violence had become far more graphic and mainstream.
5th Oct 2025
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: I actually have two questions. On the commentary for Back to the Future around when Doc breaks the clock tower ledge, Bob Gale mentions that the 4 on the clock is IV and not IIII. I just need a better understanding of how he is talking about it being a mistake. Is it really a mistake? Because I will submit it as a mistake. What kind of mistake would this fall under? Continuity, factorial error, plot hole, or other? If it's not a mistake, then I won't submit it.
Answer: Romans used both numerical styles for the number four. Romans used IIII for vertical lists, on stone columns, etc. It was supposedly easier to add the extra "I" rather than IV. For horizontal writing, the IV was used. Bob Gale is apparently referring to how old clock faces typically used the IIII instead of the more familiar IV. The clock tower in the movie was supposed to be 100 years old, so "IIII" is what should have been used in the 1800s instead of "IV," so that appears to be the mistake. As far as the type of mistake, probably "Factual Error."
Fun fact, my mom has a clock that uses Roman numerals, and the 4 is indeed IIII on it, not IV. If it is a mistake, it is one that is common and not unique to the movie. I think it is used in clocks traditionally since the Romans used to use it on their sundials.
30th Sep 2025
The Long Walk (2025)
Question: Is it really possible to fall asleep while walking? Sure, one can stand up and walk around while sleeping (sleepwalking), but does it work the other way around too?
Answer: Yes, it's possible. People with a neurological disorder called narcolepsy can fall asleep while standing or walking. Some can even engage in complex activities like driving a car.
But what if you aren't narcoleptic? Can a normal person fall asleep while walking just because of general fatigue?
Yes, it is possible for a person to fall into a state of semi-sleep or "doze" while walking without having narcolepsy, especially under extreme conditions like those shown. When the brain is severely deprived of sleep, it can involuntarily enter microsleeps. These are brief, uncontrolled episodes of sleep lasting from a fraction of a second up to about 30 seconds.
No, there would have to be some underlying neurological issue that caused it. Normal people cannot fall asleep for an extended time period while walking and remain upright and mobile. Microsleep only lasts a few seconds, but a person has to have been extremely sleep deprived for many hours and they cannot function normally during an episode like with narcolepsy or sleepwalking.
Yes, they can. When the brain is severely deprived of sleep, it can involuntarily enter microsleeps. These are brief, uncontrolled episodes of sleep lasting from a fraction of a second up to about 30 seconds.
5th Apr 2005
Hard Day's Night (1964)
Corrected entry: Just after John has his "you look just like him" conversation with the lady in the hall, he goes up the stairs, turns, and says "She looks more like him than I do," but his lips don't move.
8th Sep 2025
Sully (2016)
Question: Shortly after the plane landed in the river, why was the air traffic controller removed from his terminal and replaced while the supervisor says someone will come down to administer standard tests?
Answer: Air Traffic Controllers have to be on top of their game at all times and not compromised. When something goes wrong, like a plane crashing that a particular ATC is overseeing, it is treated similarly to when a cop is involved in a shooting. They are temporarily relieved of duty and taken to be evaluated and drug tested to make sure the ATC was not on any drugs or substances that would have interfered with his or her ability to do the job, as well as to take the ATC out of a stressful situation and get someone fresh onto the job. My dad is a former ATC for the Marine Reserves.
21st Mar 2025
Three's Company (1977)
Question: Why did they fire Jenilee Harrison?
Answer: The producers felt that she was too "inexperienced and unseasoned" for her role on the show. Harrison admitted that she "had a lot of naivety."
Well, how else do you get experience in acting? By being on a show, in a movie, or in a play. She was fun and seemed rather sweet.
True, but the producers apparently felt an older, more experienced actress would better play off the other characters. Shows also monitor how well viewers react to characters. Of course, there are serious reasons why actors are let go such as drug/alcohol abuse, mental health issues, legal problems, public controversies, etc, that become a liability to the show, though it's often downplayed or covered up. Charlie Sheen and Roseanne Barr are high-profile examples. If there was some other issue with Harrison, a cover story could have been issued to protect her reputation. That doesn't mean there were any, just a possibility.
In addition to what Ray West wrote, I want to add that many actors start out as children and young teenagers. So she could have been inexperienced compared to someone else of the same age. IMDb only lists three TV episodes that she acted in before "Three's Company."
Answer: The official reason was producers felt Harrison was "too inexperienced and unseasoned" an actress (translated Harrison was probably too immature). After Harrison's first season as Cindy Snow, actress Priscilla Barnes joined the cast as Terri Alden, Jack and Janet's new roommate. Terri was a stronger, more complex character than ditzy, naive Cindy. Harrison's role diminished and Cindy was now living on her college campus. After a handful of episodes, Cindy was written out without explanation.
15th Jan 2018
General questions
When sitcom TV shows have restaurant scenes, are these typically filmed in a real restaurant or is a set created?
Answer: Due to the logistics involved in filming, in most cases, a set would be created. In some cases, a real restaurant might be used, but it would involve compensating a business for lost revenue during the filming, obtaining special city permits, hiring police to monitor crowd control, etc. It is simpler and more economic to build a confined set.
The above is certainly true but a rare third option is filming in an old, closed business. The place is refurbished by the crew, it looks realistic and it is simple to move the action in and out of the venue. An example is the bar at the beginning of The Wolverine, set in the USA but filmed in an old, closed pub in rural Australia.
29th Jan 2025
Terror by Night (1946)
Question: Holmes says he realised that Inspector McDonald was an impostor because he supposedly knows the 'real' Inspector McDonald of the Edinburgh police. As shown in the other movies and Conan Doyle's original stories, there are several Inspectors working for Scotland Yard in London (another British city), which begs the question: does this resolution Holmes mentioned about two British Inspectors having the same surname make sense and, if so, why?
Answer: If you're comparing the film to Arthur Conan Doyle's original Sherlock Holmes stories, then any discrepancy does not really apply. The Basil Rathbone films were loose adaptions of Doyle's work, often incorporating plot elements from multiple stories or were original screenplays with new characters. There was little regard to details or plot consistencies. "Terror by Night" was an entirely original story. The original Sherlock Holmes stories were set in the late Victorian era while the 12 Universal Studio films mostly took place during World War II, with Holmes often fighting Nazis and enemy spies. The first two Sherlock Holmes films by 20th Cent. Fox studio were generally faithful to the original stories.
Actually, my question is related to the movies themselves and it's not a comparison. There are still several inspectors working for Scotland Yard in the Basil Rathbone saga too (I've made an entry edition to include this).
Thanks for clarifying, though you stated, "as shown in the other movies 'and' Doyle's original stories." Much of my previous answer still applies. The Basil Rathbone movies were not a definitive interpretation of Sherlock Holmes. The first two by 20th Century Fox were mostly faithful to the original stories. The 12 later Universal Studios films were lower-budget, cranked out in rapid succession for profit, and shifted the time period to the mid-20th century for cheaper production costs. The studio's mandate was the films were, "to simply be entertaining B pictures." There was little regard for historical accuracy or plot continuity from film to film. Scripts were simultaneously developed by different writing teams. The 12 films had multiple directors and screenwriters who were focused on their individual projects.
Actually, almost all the movies were directed by Roy William Neill (11 of 14).
That's true, but many different screenwriters were simultaneously working on the various movies. It's also typical in Hollywood for uncredited "script doctors" to revise scripts, further adding to small inconsistencies. Universal Studios had a seven-year contract with the Doyle estate to make the Sherlock Holmes films. They produced them quickly, releasing three movies per year. Under the contract, Universal was allowed to make plot revisions, create some original stories, and modernise the setting (making it more topical and cheaper to produce).
20th Jan 2006
Sister Act (1992)
Question: Why does the young red-headed nun, that doesn't sing very loud (can't remember her name), wear a different habit?
Answer: It is because she is not, technically, a nun yet. She is a novice, one who is in the "trial period" of becoming a nun, but who has not made the final vows to join the order.
She doesn't wear a white cap in the second movie either, and she did her vows.
It takes 9-12 years to become a nun, with many stages: discernment, aspirancy, postulancy, novitiate, temporary vows, and finally, solemn vows. The young nun may have moved up a step but would not yet have taken her solemn vows. The various stages would have differences in apparel, headdress, insignia, etc. that showed their rank. In addition, different nun orders wear different styles of habits.
10th Apr 2004
The Great Escape (1963)
Factual error: Why is Hilts not wearing a uniform? A serving officer captured behind enemy lines in civilian clothing risked being shot as a spy. If a prisoner's uniform was too worn or damaged to wear, it was routine for the German authorities to replace it - a P.O.W. in civilian clothes is an obvious escape risk. He is wearing a pair of tan chinos, a cut off sloppy Joe sweatshirt, both ridiculously anachronistic - Sixties hipster fashions - and nowhere even close to a World War 2 uniform. He is also wearing Army Type III Service boots - something that would never have been issued to a fighter pilot.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Hilts was a POW for a few years before being transferred to this camp. His current clothing likely changed from when he was originally captured in his uniform, so he would not have been considered a spy. After multiple escape attempts, his uniform could have been ruined. The Geneva Convention required that POWs receive shelter, food, clothing, medical care, etc. The Red Cross delivered care packages to POW camps containing food, miscellaneous apparel, and other essentials. Sweatshirts have existed since the 1920s and changed little. Also, chino pants have been around since the late 19th century. Hilts was an U.S. Air Force pilot, and light-colored khaki trousers (similar to chinos) were standard-issue uniform for some U.S. military branches, along with leather bomber jackets for Air Force pilots. Therefore, he is dressed appropriately for his military branch.
And none of them would have been available to a prisoner in a German POW camp in the mid 1940s. Not one single item of hipster fashion would have found its way into the camp. Even if it did, do you really think the German authorities would allow a prisoner to lounge about in civilian clothing? Talk about an escape risk.
The camp was in Germany, not Poland. As I previously mentioned, other than the sweatshirt, Hilts appears to wear military clothing - a leather pilot's bomber's jacket with military sleeve insignia, and U.S. Air Force khaki trousers. So not "hipster" '60s civilian clothing. The sweatshirt could be military appropriate (even issued) and something Hilts acquired at a different camp. He arrived with a small duffel bag that presumably had some misc clothing. He and two other POWs are the only Americans and have different uniforms. The current camp commandant, who apparently disdained Hitler and his Nazi minions, would decide what POWs could wear.
15th Nov 2024
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Question: To create a horcrux, a witch or wizard must first split their soul by intentionally and deliberately murdering someone without any guilt or remorse for their actions. Since Tom Riddle murdered countless people, shouldn't his soul have been split into more fragments rather than just seven?
Answer: The other answer is spot on, but I would add that it requires casting a specific spell while simultaneously killing someone to make horcrux and split one's soul. (The movie downplayed this and the spell name is never revealed in the book.) Professor Slughorn had told the young Tom Riddle that the act involved dark magic, though he did not provide details. Riddle apparently discovered what that dark spell was to make horcrux.
Answer: Next to the act of murder, one also has to purposefully turn an object into a horcrux in order to make a horcrux. Your soul splitting doesn't automatically send that piece of soul into an object; your soul will be split but still connected to your body. As for when Voldemort's killing curse rebounded onto Harry, his real body was destroyed, and his fragmented soul shattered because it was frail and unstable, causing a piece to detach and lodge onto Harry.
The question wasn't about how to make a Horcrux. It was about why each murder Tom committed didn't shatter his soul more. For example, if Tom killed 11,000 people, then shouldn't his soul have shattered into 11,000 pieces?
I think your soul splits when you kill someone, but doesn't split again when murdering someone else (which part would?). Once you murder, your soul is split and will stay split until you detach a part of your soul. It's not like Tom could have saved up on fragments of soul by killing and then put pieces of his soul into objects one after the other. He had to murder and then purposefully put that split part into an object, and only then be able to split his soul again with another murder.
To further clarify, according to J.K. Rowling, random killing damages a wizard's soul, but does not split it. That requires using Dark magic and deliberately storing the soul shard into a vessel, making it a horcrux. Riddle chose six significant objects for the horcruxes and left one soul piece in his body. When Riddle cast the Killing Curse at baby Harry, it rebounded and simultaneously destroyed Riddle's body and sheared off another soul piece. Harry's forehead scar was an accidental seventh horcrux that Riddle never knew existed. It was Lily Potter's love and sacrificing her life to save Harry that protected him from the killing curse.
15th Oct 2024
Beetlejuice (1988)
Question: Was Jane lying when she said that she decorated the Maitland home (she wanted Lydia to mention this to her parents)?
Answer: Jane appears to be taking credit for what Barbara and Adam had done. At the beginning of the movie, the Maitlands are discussing the home projects they've been working on. Adam has been refinishing cabinetry while Barbara has chosen wallpaper, and they're spending their two-week vacation working on the house.
Answer: It's never answered in the film if she actually decorated the house for Adam and Barbara, but there isn't really any reason to doubt it.
My interpretation was that Jane was always chasing a buck. She aggressively pestered Adam and Barbara to sell the house just to earn a commission. She was hustling the Deetzes for her decorating services. Regarding Barbara and Adam, they just didn't want anyone in their beloved house, much less having it redecorated after all the work they did on it.
But if she actually did, then I wonder if they would care as much about the Deetzes remodeling the home?
This is a stretch, but maybe Jane wanted to keep the house as close to how Adam and Barbara had it, like a shrine. It's not uncommon for those who lost loved ones to try and keep things as close to what was possible.
What I meant was, why would Adam and Barbara, not Jane, be so upset about the remodeling if Jane did the decorating anyway? Granted, they apparently chose to live with it.
That was probably a comfort thing. They learned they were going to spend over a century in that house, and it would be one thing if it was closer to what they were comfortable with, but the Deetzes' style was too much for them.
11th Oct 2024
The Hand that Rocks the Cradle (1992)
Question: Is there any indication that Mrs Mott knew that her husband was sexually assaulting his female patients? I doubt any pregnant woman would be pleased if she found out her husband was taking advantage of other women for his own desires behind her back.
Answer: I don't think she knew. Later on, while talking to Claire, she sounds happy about him and says that he was the only one who really understood her. It's also possible that she heard occasional rumours about him, but refused to believe any of it. This happens in real life - a person will ignore numerous allegations against their spouse/partner. They don't believe it, and/or they want to cling to their ideal fantasy life. Notice how Mrs Motts thinks of her husband's death as a murder, and Claire is the "murderer."
Answer: Totally agree with the other answer, but would add that Mott's previous victims only came forward after Claire made her allegations. Many sexual assault victims fail to report crimes because they are embarrassed, think they won't be believed, fear public backlash, dread the legal process, etc. Mott, being a doctor, made it hard to prove his actions were "sexual" in nature. He was pretty subtle, leaving his victims unsure and making it difficult to prove sexual assault.
I just figured that maybe there was occasional gossip/rumours about Mott's behaviour before Claire reported it. But you are very correct - his actions would be subtle and difficult to prove. Also, the people who do these things are usually popular and well-respected, not stereotypical "creeps."
21st Sep 2024
Enough (2002)
Question: If Mitch was pleased with the way his marriage had turned out and he admitted that Slim was a great sexual partner and she did nothing wrong to justify his affairs, then why does he still have "needs" that need to be met by sleeping around? He seemed to know full well he was risking throwing away all the success he had achieved and wanted to keep just to fool around.
Answer: You've answered your own question; he just wanted to continue having affairs and was using his "needs" as an excuse. Abusers manipulate/gaslight their victims by placing the blame for the abuser's behaviour onto them, knowing full well it is a lie.
Well, did he have an actual reason for doing that in the first place, since he stated that he was satisfied with his marriage? After all, he never denied that Slim was a great partner and did a lot for him, and he wouldn't have lost his family if he had acted like a responsible family man.
Right, he *acts* like a responsible family man. This is part of his abuse. The point is that he is NOT a responsible family man; never was, never would be. He's an abuser, and Slim is his victim. From the moment they met, he was manipulating her into thinking he was devoted to her. This is how abusers work: act like the perfect partner on the surface until they have total control over their victim, when it's too late for their victim to escape. Everything he says about being "satisfied" is a lie.
You do make a good point about how him saying he was truly satisfied with the marriage life was a lie. I was a bit skeptical since he did seem content with his marriage for the most part prior to truly losing control, but the possible idea did occur to me that he was probably playing the role of someone who he really wasn't, such as putting on a face of being a strong and hard-working man, when in reality he was weak and a coward. I appreciate the feedback and insight.
I've known a few men who were completely satisfied being married, loved their wives, and enjoyed the perks and comforts of domestic life with their spouse running the house, caring for the kids, coordinating their social life, etc. But despite all that, they had affairs on the side, apparently enjoying the thrill of secret liaisons and wanting variety. Eventually, their wives divorced them.
Answer: Along with the other comments here, I want to point out that abusive people can have a twisted idea of "love" and acceptable behaviour. Mitch might actually believe that he loves his family and he is a good husband/father, who likes to have the casual affair "on the side."
16th Jul 2008
The Firm (1993)
Plot hole: In Cayman, a drugged Avery passes out on the bed, fully clothed. Abby is in the kitchen, carrying the Mafia files. The bedroom is in the background, only now Avery is under the covers and undressed. He was drugged and too heavy for Abby to move and undress alone and have enough time to also transport files, copy them, and return everything to the bungalow before Avery awoke. Avery would also know he passed out atop the bed and not under the covers.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When he falls, his head is about 3 feet from the pillow, where it is later in the background. Abby would only need to drag him up the bed. Pretty easy even for someone with Abby's build. Avery's shirt is fully unbuttoned when he falls backwards onto the bed, so removing it would be very simple. Then all she needed to do was drag the cover out from under him and put it over. She could probably do all that in 2 minutes. Also, Avery wouldn't have been suspicious, only confused.
Abby could not possibly have done all that in "2 minutes." A small woman moving and undressing a 180 lb. unconscious man is not an easy task and impossible in that short amount of time. Abby had a limited time to move, copy, and return the files.
The gender of the people involved is irrelevant. It isn't known that Abby removes Avery's trousers. All we know is that she removes his already unbuttoned shirt, pulls him 3 ft up the bed and puts a sheet over him. My partner and I, who weighs significantly more than I, have just simulated the scene. I was able to move them up the bed, remove their shirt and put a sheet over them in just over 2 minutes. Abby then has an unknown number of hours to deal with the files, which she did.
24th Jun 2018
The Firm (1993)
Character mistake: At the end, when Mitch tells Agent Tarrance that the government can convict the law firm on mail fraud and racketeering, he says he got the idea while he was studying for the bar exam. He actually got the idea from a client earlier in the film when the client was complaining about being over-billed and tells Mitch that every time a bill is mailed through USPS, the firm is committing mail fraud which is a federal offense, punishable by fines and prison.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is not wholly correct. Mulholland (the client) planted the seed in Mitch's head, but Mitch realised instantly that it was a federal offense, presumably because he had studied it.
14th Aug 2024
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
But his surname sounds German. It might suggest that he is an American Neo-Nazi of German descent.
Yes, of German origin. "American" is not a race or ethnicity, is made up of many cultures, and is only a nationality. Klaber is an American citizen likely with German ancestry. American Neo-Nazis are of many different racial backgrounds. They adopt Nazi ideologies.
German is also a nationality, not a race. To be clear.
German is a nationality, referring to citizens of the country of Germany, and also an ethnicity, traditionally characterized by certain genetic traits, certain facial features, light-coloured eyes, blond hair, etc. "American" is only a designation of citizenship, not any particular racial or ethnic makeup.
That's not true. People with those genetic traits (like me) are not "German" or "Germanic." Maybe Aryan or Caucasian. Those are ethnicities. Not German. Germans are only distinguished by their use of the Germanic language, not their appearance. Also, certain Germanic tribes were very far from blond and light-colored eyes.
20th Feb 2009
Jaws (1975)
Question: When the swimmers are running out of the water, why does Brody shout: "No whistles?"
Answer: Brody didn't want to panic all the beach goers and cause a splashing commotion which would excite the shark.
Answer: When the shark attacks fist began, Brody began reading up on shark behavior. It is believed that vibrating sounds can attract sharks. Brody believes that multiple people blowing loud whistles could bring the shark closer into shore.
On the contrary, high frequency noises (such as those produced by whistles) barely penetrate into the water and seem to have no effect on sharks or any other fish. Low-frequency noises (such as concussive splashing) travel a great distance in water and are a definite attraction for marine predators. Ultra-low-frequency noises (such as the songs of whales) can travel hundreds of miles through water. The U.S. Navy even uses extremely-low-frequency (ELF) transmissions for communicating with submarines far out at sea. So, no, there is no documented scientific reason for Brody to think that high-frequency noise would attract sharks. Either the movie's screenwriters were badly mistaken in their assumption that whistles attract sharks, or the character of Chief Brody was deliberately written to be mistaken in that assumption.
In a study, sharks were attracted to low-frequency pulsed sounds resembling those of struggling fish. Sharks appearing in close to wounded or struggling fish has often been observed by fishermen and scuba divers. That type of shark behavior is probably what Brody read about, though his scientific knowledge or understanding about it was limited. He was just reacting in an excited manner.
23rd Dec 2017
Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)
Question: I have read the books and watched the movies countless times but this part I still don't get; why was Christian so upset when he found out that Ana was a virgin? Neither the book(s) nor the movie expresses this in detail.
Answer: Christian was sensitive and compassionate enough not to want a young virgin's first-ever sexual experience to be a kinky BDSM experience. Ana would then have no first-hand knowledge of what a normal (or vanilla) sexual relationship was like. Christian liked introducing experienced women to a different type of sexuality, something Ana would be unable to compare it to.
Answer: Christian wasn't mad. He says "where have you been" indicating he was looking for someone like her - a virgin whom he could mold into whatever he wanted since she didn't know any better.
Answer: The other answer has a few errors. First of all, "Licence to Kill" followed this film, not the other way around. Second, John Terry played Leiter in this film, and was then replaced by David Hedison in "Licence to Kill." The recasting of Leiter was nothing new; Terry was the seventh actor to play him, and it was actually more unusual that Hedison was brought back; he was the first actor to play the role more than once, and the only one to do so until Jeffrey Wright took over the role in the Daniel Craig era.
Thanks. I corrected this. I inadvertently transposed the two "L" titles.
raywest ★