When an actor wants to leave a show or is fired, why is the character killed off instead of having them do something else? In House M.D, Kal Penn wanted to leave the show, so his character was written as having committed suicide. Wouldn't it have been better to have his character leave the show by either having him take a job somewhere else or having him get fired instead of him killing himself? In Roseanne, her character overdosed. Why not have her character divorce Dan instead?
raywest
9th Jun 2024
General questions
19th Jul 2024
What Lies Beneath (2000)
Question: If Norman married Claire when she was "touring with a baby" (Caitlin), why is he not referred to as Caitlin's stepfather? When they take her to college, Claire refers to him as "Norman" when speaking to her. I've seen the movie a few times and always thought this was a little odd. Many people would even think of a stepfather as "father" if he was the one who raised them for most of their life.
Answer: There's no rule about how a step-father is referred to. Caitlin may simply not consider him a father figure to remain close to her real dad. Many step-children call their step-parent by their first name, regardless of how long the parents have been married. Most likely this is a plot device so that the audience isn't confused about or doesn't forget that Norman is not Caitlin's real father. Some may be offended by a father killing his biological child's mother. It makes Norman less attached to either Claire or Caitlin.
I am not trying to be rude, but have you seen this movie? You say that Caitlin might be close to her real dad. He is dead. Claire was "touring with a baby" after he died, and then she met Norman. Hence why I found the situation a bit odd. Norman has been in Caitlin's life since she was a "baby."
I saw the movie some years ago and don't remember every small detail. However, my main point was that calling Norman by his first name was a plot device to keep the audience focused on him not being Caitlin's biological father. This kept his character more detached from Claire and Caitlin, and made him less sympathetic. It showed an emotional/personal divide existed between Norman and Claire and her daughter. He has less resistance in killing Claire if they did not share a biological child.
28th Jun 2024
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: To become master of the Elder Wand, it must be taken from the wizard who owns it. How could Harry become the new master of the wand when it was buried with Dumbledore and Harry took away Draco's own wand?
Answer: You don't have to physically take the wand to become the master; you have to disarm the master. When Harry disarmed Draco, the wand became his. Even though the wand was not present, it still knew. Call it magic.
Answer: The Elder Wand or Deathstick must be removed by force from the current owner. Draco disarms Dumbledore at the top of the tower. Thus, its allegiance passed to Draco and he becomes the wand's master. When Voldemort takes the wand from Dumbledore's grave, he's not taking it from the wand's master. Later, Harry disarms Draco and as such Harry is now the wand's master. This ultimately proves helpful and a key point in the final showdown in the Great Hall. As Lionhead said above, it's magic. But at its deepest level, as explained by Mr. Ollivander at Shell Cottage.
Answer: The wand chooses the wizard. Draco disarmed Dumbledore to satisfy the wand's allegiance, and Harry disarming Malfoy and taking his was enough for the Elder Wand, the most powerful wand in the world, to change allegiance.
18th Jun 2024
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: Why not take over this planet's cloning process instead of shutting it down and recruiting others to be Stormtroopers, when the clones were 100% obedient and loyal to the Emperor?
Answer: I think recruiting people is one of the sneaky ways of controlling the galaxy. Many Stormtroopers might have spouses and children back home. They could be receiving a tiny salary. Maybe some younger adults are eager to get away from their home planets, as Luke and Anakin both were. Still, others could be criminals who agreed to serve as Stormtroopers instead of another sentence (in "Game of Thrones", some convicted criminals can choose to join the Night's Watch order). These would all be ways to convince more citizens to support the Empire, instead of just training clones.
I'd like to add besides these points that it's possible the cloning process is just too slow and cumbersome for the Emperor. They were useful as shock troops, to fight droid armies. But their numbers were not great enough to cover the entire galaxy as a security force. This especially once the Rebel Alliance shows up. I'd say recruiting people gives him a much-needed manpower boost in a shorter time.
Answer: There would be serious moral and ethical issues about cloning sentient beings just to become mindless, obedient servants/slaves/killers to achieve your cause, regardless of its good intent.
But the Empire clearly doesn't really have moral/ethical issues about most stuff, so that's not really an argument.
Ray West mentions "mindless, obedient" servants, which is a good point. I think an army of "mindless" clones would actually be less effective. Instead, the Emperor claims that the Jedi wanted to overthrow the Senate. If he can persuade a decent number of people to support him, and spread his way of thinking, he can slowly gain more influence around the galaxy.
9th Jun 2024
General questions
Is there a general reason why American actors are chosen for starring roles as British characters, or vice versa? I've read about Renée Zellweger working at a British publishing firm to prepare for the Bridget Jones movie. Andrew Lincoln played a Southern US man on "The Walking Dead" for several years. Natalie Portman hired a coach to help her prepare for playing Anne Boleyn. With all due respect to them, would it not be easier to simply use an actual British or American actor?
Answer: Why "easier"? If an actor can do the right accent and is the best fit for the role, there's no great hardship in someone traveling for work and changing their voice. It's not like they're hiring someone with a completely inappropriate physical look that will involve hours in makeup every day. If the best person for the role happens to be a different nationality, far better to get them to do an accent and make the movie better, rather than hiring someone with the right natural accent but who isn't actually as good a fit. Producers and directors and casting directors don't owe it to actors of either nationality to give them work, their job is to find the best person for the film they're making.
Why the snappy response? This is why people are afraid to ask questions.
What was "snappy"? You used the word easier, I asked why. I didn't accuse you of implying anyone was owed work, I was just stating that as a fact. Slightly odd you'd reply "thank you for your comment" then later come back with your own "snappy" response, when I just answered the question you asked. No evidence anyone's afraid to ask question either - they get asked here all the time.
By "easier", I only meant that some of the preparation work might have been skipped by choosing someone who is already American or British. Also, I did not mean to imply that any actors are "owed" work. They're not. I was only curious about why actors are chosen for such roles. Thank you for your comment.
Even actors playing someone of their own nationality often have to work with a dialect coach to perfect a regional accent. An American actor who grew up on the West Coast does not speak the same as someone from New England, the Mid-West, the South, Texas, New York, etc. The same for British actors as there are many regional accents and dialects they may have to master.
Answer: Working Title Films tried for years to raise the finance to make "Bridget Jones' Diary", but nobody was interested, even with Rachel Weisz and later Kate Winslet attached as Bridget. Then one day Renée Zellweger signed on and Miramax and Universal threw money at them. This explains the many jarring Americanisms in the film, sops to the film's US financiers.
Answer: Would add that it's typical when casting a movie that multiple actors are typically considered for a main role. Movies are a huge and risky financial investment, so for a big-budget film, it's usually a small pool of bankable A-list actors that are considered, regardless of nationality. In the case of Bridget Jones' Diary, Helena Bonham-Carter, Cate Blanchett, Emily Watson, Rachel Weisz, Cameron Diaz, Kate Winslet, and Toni Collette were considered. Some were tied to other projects, Winslet was considered too young, Weisz too pretty, and so on before producers landed on Zellweger.
9th Sep 2016
Cast Away (2000)
Revealing mistake: When Kelly is copying her dissertation, there is no paper being fed through the copier feeder or any printed pages going into the output tray. (00:12:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Watch carefully. When Kelly turns round, you can see, by her right hand, paper coming out of the copier and landing in a pile on top of each other.
8th Jun 2020
Cast Away (2000)
Question: If the package got delivered to the cheating husband, which we see in the scene where he receives it shirtless wearing a cowboy hat, then how did that package end up back on a plane headed to the USA and crash and wash up on beach? Wouldn't that package have been opened by said cheating husband?
Answer: I just re-watched the movie, and realise my previous answer is wrong. Here is what happened. Bettina Petersen, the lady on the Texas ranch, sends a FedEx package to her husband in Russia. She appears to regularly send out packages via FedEx, possibly to customers of her artwork. When the driver picks up the outgoing package, she tells him she will have another on Thursday. That, presumably, is the package that is aboard the doomed FedEx plane that Chuck is on and the one he returns to her four years later.
But why should that parcel return to her?
It "shouldn't" do anything. If the package raywest is referring to is in fact a second package to whoever, really, that just so happened to be on Chuck's plane, there wasn't actually a reason to return it, he just chose to return it to the sender if he ever made it off that island because that package was his saving grace and his will to get back home. That's the only reason he never opened it and why he returned it just so he could thank them by saying it saved his life.
Answer: It appears the package he received contained the divorce papers, which he would have signed and then returned to the woman in the U.S. in a different package.
Might be possible! And maybe for the reason Bettina Peterson never got them she just took of her ex-husbands name at the ranch to just live free for herself again after her husband cheated on her.
Answer: The package delivered to the soon to be ex-husband has pink wings and the package Chuck never opens has gold wings.
4th May 2024
Star Wars (1977)
Question: What does Luke think happened to his mother before he meets Obi-Wan and learns that his father was a Jedi? Has this been mentioned anywhere?
Answer: It's never mentioned in the original movies what Luke believed about his mother's demise. His foster aunt and uncle probably never knew her identity, and Obi-Wan likely provided little information other than Luke's name. They apparently learned at some point that Vader was the father. Lars and Beru probably told Luke that his mother died from natural causes shortly after his birth.
According to the recent series about Obi-Wan, Obi-Wan didn't even know, right away, that Anakin became Darth Vader. He thinks that he left Anakin to die after their fight on Mustafar, and Vader is literally a separate person. Only ten years later does he find out that Anakin became Vader. If you think this change is weird and unnecessary, you're not the only one.
It is rather weird, though it kind of explains why Obi-Wan, believing Anakin was dead, would reveal Luke's real name to Lars and Beru. Even so, it would have been wiser to use a false surname. Of course, it also makes little sense that Obi-Wan, after learning about Vader, wouldn't tell Lars and Beru to change Luke's last name to protect him and themselves. It sounds like a typical plot point revision after people notice inconsistencies in the storyline.
Good point. But I thought Force users could sense when someone close to them dies. Anakin could feel his mother's pain, and later, Vader says he felt that Padme was still alive.
Just more plot inconsistencies, though Obi-Wan, the one who inflicted the pain, would have been sensing as well as witnessing Anakin's agony in the moment, leading to him assume Anakin would quickly die. He could have dismissed any later Force disturbances he felt regarding Anakin, believing him dead.
2nd Jun 2005
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Revealing mistake: When Luke is being fed to the Rancor, in Jabba the Hutt's dungeon, there are black outlines around the beast's legs, from the composite's blue screen special effect. This was edited out in the special edition rerelease.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This was not a "mistake". The outlines showing around the beast's leg were due to the limited CGI technology at the time the film was made. With advances in special effects in the following decades, the filmmakers were able to enhance the CGI quality in later releases.
But it is a mistake to show that the Rancor is not real, and the outlines show that. It's certainly not intentional.
Not sure what you mean that the rancor is not real. Of course it's not real. The issue is, at that time, it was not technically possible to show the beastie without the lines showing. I classify a mistake as something that was not intentional. In this case, it was, due to the limitations of CGI in the 1980s.
21st Apr 2024
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Question: Ron's wand gets broken, and for the rest of the year, he has to use it even though it doesn't cast spells properly. Why doesn't the school just get Ron a new wand? His parents can't afford one because of how expensive they must be, but surely one of the teachers could take him to Ollivander's and help him get another one.
Answer: I agree with what RayWest said. Another possible factor is that Ron damaged his wand when the flying car crashed into the Whomping Willow, which upsets the Hogwarts staff and Ron's parents. I can imagine Mrs. Weasley wanting him to deal with the consequences of his actions for the rest of the school year.
Good point, and Ron, in addition to being in trouble with the school, also got his father into hot water with the Ministry of Magic over the flying car. I can't imagine, after all that, Ron asking for a new wand. I doubt he even told his parents that he broke it, which would further anger them.
Answer: It's not the school's responsibility to provide equipment for students. It can be humiliating for a student and the family to receive charity. It also sets a precedent for Hogwarts having to supply any number of things for students, and creates a situation where they could be taken advantage of. Realistically, this is a book plot point. It may not be logical, but the story would not play out and end as it does if Ron had a proper wand.
28th Feb 2016
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)
Other mistake: When the boat that Willy Wonka and the passengers are riding on is heading for the tunnel through the river of chocolate, two crewmen are cranking the paddle wheel. The wheel is in an opening in the middle of the deck. As the paddle is rotating, moving the boat through the river, the blades are always clean and dry and never have any chocolate on them whatsoever. Also the paddle is rotating the wrong way. It should be rotating clockwise.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When the Wonkamobile and passengers are covered in lather, it goes through a magical "squeegee" line that instantly has everyone clean and dry. Perhaps the same principle goes for the paddlewheel.
19th Mar 2024
General questions
What exactly is the "lowest common denominator" audience? I've heard people say this when they think a movie or show is bad - that it was made for the "lowest common denominator." But why would studios/networks deliberately make something that the majority of people will not like?
Answer: It's actually the reverse - the lowest common denominator audience is meant to be the simplest, least demanding, lowest-expectations audience. Basically an audience that might want some special effects or a generic sexy plot, without being that bothered about creativity, artistic merit, etc. The broad idea is that that covers quite a large section of the population, just not a "highbrow" section. It's often applied to films or shows that might have a high commercial appeal (but not always) but get low critical ratings. Some/all of the Transformers films might fall into this category, for example. The people who like them really like them, but a lot of people don't, and they don't get good reviews, but still make a lot of money.
There is also a segment of "guilty pleasure" viewers. Unlike the lowest common denominator, they claim to be aware that a movie/show is poor quality, however, they get a smug satisfaction from watching. Low-budget thriller movies and "trashy" reality shows are good examples. Many people will watch those "ironically" and believe that they are superior to the audience ("I'm smart enough to know better"). Networks probably have these viewers in mind, too.
Totally agree with your assessment, but would add that many moviegoers often prefer familiar and predictable plots because they think they've figured everything out, know "who did it," who gets the girl or boy, that the hero will save the day, and so on, without realizing it's the same story over and over. I have friends who prefer one or two types of movies (romantic comedies for women and action/superhero movies for guys) where they don't have to think too hard about the plot and want a predetermine outcome. Hollywood knows what audiences like, do test screenings for audience reaction, often change endings based on feedback, and formulate what makes the most money. Familiar plots are continually rehashed, knowing what sells to the widest audience. It's unfortunate as creativity and innovation is squashed for formulaic, profit-motivated projects.
21st Mar 2024
Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (1993)
Question: Whenever Clark uses his X-ray vision, why does he lower his glasses? Lowering them when he uses heat vision is understandable but there's no need to do it when Clark uses X-ray vision.
Answer: I don't recall if it was ever mentioned in an episode, but it's possible that the frames and/or lenses of his glasses are lined with lead, the one compound his X-ray vision can't penetrate. Speculative, of course, but it likely would have been done at a point in his youth when he wasn't in complete control of his powers.
28th Jan 2024
Masquerade (1988)
Plot hole: At Tim's funeral, Olivia's attorney tells her that Tim had himself removed from Olivia's Last Will and Testament, proving he loved her and didn't want her money. However, an attorney could not legally change a client's Will without that person's knowledge and drafting a revised version.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not true. Anyone can have themselves removed as a beneficiary of a will. This is done by signing an Affidavit of Disclaimer of Inheritance at such time as someone becomes aware that they have been included in a will as a beneficiary. This is what Tim meant when he said he had removed himself from Olivia's will.
8th Jan 2024
Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
Question: Why didn't the Japanese just cut the rope net off the cliff side to prevent the Americans from climbing up and attacking? Common sense would have been to inhibit their advance any way they could.
Answer: I'd classify it as a deliberate mistake or choice on the moviemakers' part. It fit the plot to have it play out that way and have the Japanese being attacked.
A deliberate mistake is something like using an 8-month-old baby as a newborn, something done intentionally for filming purposes. Writing in a plot contrivance isn't a deliberate mistake. At best, it could be considered a character mistake if it's something a real person would do in the character's position or a stupidity, a stupid act by a character for the sake of the plot.
It was a plot mechanic. Unfortunately, resulting in a massive, obvious plot hole.
17th Jun 2015
Friends (1994)
The One with Mrs. Bing - S1-E11
Question: When we first see Mrs Bing on TV, Jay Leno mentions that she recently got arrested and asks how it came about. Her response is "occasionally, after being intimate with a man, I just get a craving for Kung Pao chicken" This gets a lot of cheers and laughter from the audience and Chandler shouts "that's too much information!" at the TV. What was happening here? Why does what Mrs Bing said get so much of a reaction from everyone and not answer the question she was asked? Am I missing something?
Answer: This is a story about how Chandler's mom got arrested. So she is saying "after being intimate with a man I get a craving for Kung Pao Chicken." So what she is implying is that she is intimate with whomever, and immediately afterwards when orders Kung Pao Chicken. By this she is saying she got arrested at the place where they sell Kung Poa Chicken, because she was being intimate with the individual there. Conclusion she was openly having sex at a Chinese Restaurant.
Answer: I've seen a few answers that are similar to this. It's really unclear to me what the relation to being arrested is and/or why it's too much information. I feel like I'm missing a connection here.
Chosen answer: Nora Bing's remarks got a huge response by her being funny and making the incident about sex. Audiences tend react to titillating anecdotes. Chandler, of course, is always mortified by his mother for not acting her age and being sexually uninhibited.
This answers nothing really.
Answer: I honestly think part of it has been deleted since the original broadcast. I remember her saying something extra that carried on the joke, but watching it on streaming services, it isn't there.
17th Nov 2023
Inside Man (2006)
6th Dec 2023
Fatal Attraction (1987)
Question: If Alex was being honest about being pregnant with his child and wanting Dan to take responsibility for it, then why didn't she just make an appointment with the authorities? If the child was proven to come from him, then surely he would be required to support it by law, at the very least financially.
Answer: Alex is completely mentally unstable. She doesn't just want child support or a legal acknowledgement of paternity. She wants Dan, and she wants him all to herself.
Is it possible that she was not even pregnant? (I have not re-watched the movie recently, so apologies if I forgot something.) There are a couple of online discussions about this.
There's a scene where Daniel is talking to his friend and he's explaining what the situation is and asks him about family law. He mentions speaking to Alex's gynecologist, and the doctor congratulates him (regarding the pregnancy). Alex gave Daniel the doctor's number and says he can call to confirm if he wants to - she likely gave the doc permission to discuss it with Daniel.
Of course, that was possible. I'd wondered about it too. She was either lying to trap him or allowed herself to get pregnant. The chances of her being pregnant were slim, however, since they basically had a one-night stand. She could also have gotten pregnant by somebody else. My own opinion is she was not pregnant, at least not with Dan's child.
That's true. However, they do say in behind the scenes though the her becoming pregnant was to be a motive to not move on from Dan. Though they probably decided to make it ambiguous. Though I'd say she's at least pregnant given the way she vomits unexpectedly when watching Dan and his family.
30th Oct 2023
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: A question that has been nagging me for so long: When the trio is chased by the Snatchers, why don't they just disapparate?
Answer: Anti-apparition spells are a thing. It's very possible one snatcher cast it, though we don't see it.
Answer: Apparition is not an easy spell to use. Wizards are only allowed to apparate at age 17 and are given lessons from that age. Ron definitely has never apparated before, only Harry and Hermione. It's highly unlikely they would have been able to take Ron along with apparition (side-along apparition) in the stressful situation without danger. If you do it wrongly, you get what is called "splinching," meaning parts of your body won't arrive at the destination. Ron already has injuries because of that. So, in short, it's too dangerous for them to try to apparate out of the situation.
Ron took the Apparating class at Hogwarts with Harry and Hermione. He failed his first license exam only because an overly-strict Ministry tester noticed he splinched some eyebrow hairs. Ron most certainly became practiced at it while hunting the Deathly Hallows. A hasty exit can be dangerous, however, as when Hermione hastily apparated herself, Harry, and Ron to escape the Ministry of Magic and is how Ron got his shoulder splinched.
Answer: I've wondered the same thing. There's no explanation, but it could be argued they were just panicked when the Snatchers took them by surprise. For all their abilities, they are still kids and occasionally lack critical thinking and failed to have a fallback plan for such an event or if they somehow became separated. Of course, it serves the plot as the story needs for them to be transported to Malfoy Manor. You should submit this as a plot hole.
I think even adults can panic in scary situations and not think of something that seems like an obvious solution. I've read online "tips" for getting away from muggers/robbers, but when I was actually shot by one, none of those came to mind.
In one of the books, Mr. Weasley says that many adult wizards don't apparate. It needs to be precise and it feels uncomfortable. Some would rather use a Portkey or fly on a broomstick.
22nd May 2014
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 (2012)
Corrected entry: In the letter from Bella to Renesmee she says Jacob can teach her Ticuna legends, but he's not Ticuna. Jacob is a member of the Quileute tribe.
Correction: Bella did not make a mistake, The Cullens learn that there may be information about half-mortal, half-vampire children within the Ticuna culture. What Bella means (and she is assuming she and the other Cullens will be killed by the Volturi) is that Jacob, as Renesmee's protector, will be able to discover more about this and can then share that with Renesmee. It will help disprove the Volturi's accusation that she is an "immortal child."
They did not know about that at the time Bella wrote the letter to Renesme. She was preparing a backpack with money and passport with the thought Jacob would be taking her somewhere mid battle. They didn't know about Tacuna tribe until the very end of battle scene.
Answer: Often times it's done for dramatic purposes, even if the actor leaves on good terms. Writing an episode where a character dies is much more jarring to the audience and something they may talk about the next day. Plus, actors that suddenly leave the show, don't return the next season, or die in real life, aren't there to say goodbye to friends, family, or colleagues before taking another job, going off to college, or getting fired. Which is what normally happens in real life, so it would come across as unrealistic. But there's plenty of shows/characters where an actor is knowingly leaving the show, so writers do have time to write a farewell type episode in. Also, by killing off characters, the audience doesn't have an expectation for their return and writers don't have to think about them. Of course, the alternative is recasting the character and then just dealing with the backlash or criticism of such a cheap move.
Bishop73
It does seem like recasting is rarely done, and the audience usually doesn't like the replacement.
Azalea
There's a number of cast replacements in TV shows, but often it's minor characters. More prominent ones include Dick Sargent replacing Dick York as Darrin in "Bewitched," and Sarah Chalke taking over Lecy Goranson's role as Becky in "Roseanne." Neither replacement actor was warmly received by viewers.
raywest ★