Question: I would really like some insight on a burning question I have had since seeing this movie as a child in 1978, when it came back around in theaters in eastern Canada, where I grew up. Not knowing much about American history in school, I didn't know at the time that there even was a Devil's Tower, or that it had been made the first US National Monument in 1906, and as such would have been famous to all American citizens. I still remember loving the psychic element in the film where our heroes agonize internally about the strange mound shape seen only in their heads, to be finally rewarded and deeply relieved with news footage later in the film which solidified their visions into something tangible and concrete (igneous rock actually!) Thus, as a boy knowing nothing about the tower in Wyoming, this part of the film played perfectly into the fantasy for me-it sold me all the way. But why or how did this work for Americans at the time the film was new? In the film, we are to believe that our adult heroes knew nothing of the tower before their initial close encounters, and were shocked to discover that it actually existed. Again, for me, Devil's Tower was an absolutely incredible and awesome choice, and made me love the film all the more for it. But I would like to know how Americans felt about it during the film's 1977 and later 1980 re-release? Was it just as awe-inspiring for them as well, or was it more like: "Duh-you're driving your family crazy making models of a natural rock formation everyone knows is less than 90 miles away from Mount Rushmore?" I would really appreciate an answer, because for me, the tower's news-footage "reveal" was a huge moment in the film, and really does provide the kick-start that launches the entire third act of the film. For American audiences, why was it not the same as if Roy had struggled to attach a garden hose under a hastily-built plywood model with a hole in the middle, because the aliens implanted a vision of "Old Faithful" in his head?
raywest
26th Sep 2016
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Answer: "Devil's Tower" is, indeed, a national landmark. However, it isn't one of the most famous, nor most iconic. It isn't nearly as widely known as, say, the Grand Canyon, the Mississippi River, Niagara Falls, or the landmarks you mentioned - Mount Rushmore and Old Faithful Geyser. But, as you stated, its imposing form does fit so nicely into the aura of the film's alien encounter. Devil's Tower isn't something everyone knows by shape. And for those of us who do, it doesn't require much suspension of disbelief to posit that the characters in the film wouldn't have put it together prior to the news footage.
28th Mar 2021
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Corrected entry: The aliens provide coordinates for a place to make a rendezvous with humans but do not specify a time. It's possible they're monitoring and will arrive when they see enough humans gathering at Devil's Tower, but the humans seem to expect the aliens to come more or less exactly when they actually do, somehow.
Correction: Scientists were prepared for the aliens and knew when and where they would arrive, as seen by the extensive complex built at Devil's Tower. However, as Claude Lacombe, the French scientist, speculates towards the end, hundreds of humans may have had the Devil's Tower image recently implanted in their minds, saying they were "invited" but never made the connection. Neery figured it out and was compelled to go there at that time. Neery was then allowed to join a group of trained volunteers that were already prepared to go on the ship, while the previous "abductees" were being returned to Earth.
The aliens had not given a time to meet. The scientists may be taking it on faith that the aliens will know that they've arrived at Devil's Tower and are ready, but the way the subject of timing is left unaddressed on screen feels like an oversight.
We don't know for certain if the scientists were given a specific time, but it appears they were, or at least a general window. The long-lost objects, like the ship and the military aircraft, suddenly showing up in the desert, is an indication the process has started. If humans were given the precise location where the alien ship would arrive (Devil's Tower), then, logically, the aliens would also communicate when. The scientists were communicating with the aliens using tonal sounds. Early on, the scientists received map coordinates through dish satellites as repeating pulses. They would likely receive time information the same way. As often happens in movies, this info may be something that got edited out of the film, causing an inconsistency.
This might be one of those edge cases. Under most circumstances I'd agree we could assume arrangements were made off-screen by virtue of the fact that the rendezvous occurs successfully in the first place; but in the context of this movie, in which any and all forms of contact with the aliens is treated as profound and significant, leaving it unaddressed (not even with a line of dialogue) comes off like a plot hole. I suppose we'll just have to let our fellow website readers decide.
10th Oct 2020
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Marty shows Doc in 1885 the image of the tombstone, and he says that he wished he'd paid Buford off. Why can't he just round up 80 dollars to give to Buford and apologise for not doing that in the first place?
Answer: Adjusting for inflation, $80 back in 1885 is equivalent to about $2,143.65 today. Not something you can just conjure up easily, least of all back then. And Marty couldn't just take 1985 money back to 1885 and expect people to accept it.
Except that Doc was in 1885 and could have just gone to the bank and withdrew the $80's.
How? He arrives in 1885 and magically has the equivalent of $2,100 already in a bank account? He presumably borrowed it from Buford in the first place precisely because he didn't have that much cash available.
Doc didn't borrow money from Buford. He time-traveled with a briefcase filled with currencies from different time periods, including the 1800s. Doc had shoed Buford's horse for $5, for which Buford never paid him. When one shoe later came off later, causing Buford to be thrown, Buford shot the horse and demanded Doc pay him $75 for it and $5 for a broken bottle of whiskey.
Where would have get the $80 from? You're assuming he had the $80 available to him. The bank wouldn't just give out the money for free.
You can't take out $80 in 1985 money, and give it to someone in 1885. It would look like play money to them. U.S. currency looked a lot different back then.
Well he could technically get that amount worth in gold or silver.
And, as stated, since Doc was in 1885, more specifically, eight months in 1885, he could have just taken the money out of the bank considering he had a job as a blacksmith.
In Back to the Future 2, Doc shows Marty a briefcase full of money from different time periods, including various mid-1800 currencies, that he carried with him in the DeLorean. (There are online screen shots of the contents.) Doc refused to pay Tannen the $80 because he never owed it to him. Tannen was extorting him.
Answer: Buford was a crazed gunfighter, even if they paid off the $80 that wouldn't have satisfied him. He loved to shoot and kill. He wanted a showdown to show people he is to be feared and not messed with.
1st Mar 2005
Rear Window (1954)
Question: What was in the hat box in the garden?
16th Mar 2021
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Question: Why didn't Harry simply refuse to take part in the Tri-Wizard tournament? Even though his name came out of the goblet, he could have said no.
Answer: No, he had to participate because the goblet of fire forced him into a "magical contract." The goblet itself is probably partially sentient and would punish anyone who didn't participate after being selected by the goblet. How this works exactly is never explained, but the tournament judges were pretty clear that he had no choice but to participate.
What would have happened to Harry if he broke the contract?
Broken magical contracts usually resulted in death; a good deterrent for not breaking them. Keep in mind, however, Harry (in the book at least), like many students, very much wanted to compete in the tournament despite the danger, but initially couldn't because he was underage. He still wanted to compete, despite knowing the selection process was rigged.
It's never explained.
19th Mar 2021
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Question: Given the Tasks are the main point of the Triwizard Tournament, they're pretty poor spectator sports - one is an hour underwater and another is in a dark maze. So all the overseas students spend most of a year at Hogwarts to watch three short rounds of a competition, two of which happen out of sight?
Answer: This is better understood in the book. The students were not invited there solely to watch the Triwizard Tournament. It was also a year-long educational and cultural experience. Dumbledore revived the tournament in its original form for a specific purpose - his secret goal was to build an international wizarding community to help fight Voldemort, who he was certain would return and spread his evil beyond the U.K. Bringing the Durmstrang and Beauxbaton students to Hogwarts for the school year was intended to build lasting friendships and alliances and for them to work cooperatively. Also, the original competition was never designed to entertain a crowd. It was a dangerous, life-threatening event that tested competitors' courage and abilities under extreme conditions, That is hardly boring and would likely keep spectators engaged long enough to see if the champions survived, even if some events weren't entirely visible.
Not sure where that is in the books, other than it being a genuinely good strategy, but the original question does seem to have a point - if you're going to collate three communities to watch a very spread-out version of the Olympic Games, why select two games where the action is entirely invisible to the audience other than who eventually emerges from the lake/maze first? It's like staging the Indy 500 when the crowd can only see the podium and not the track.
It is part of the book's overall plot, and, in the movie, Hermione mentions its purpose is about "magical cooperation." I don't recall that Dumbledore personally selected the events. He revived the original TriWizard Tournament, albeit with safety modifications. The real answer, however, is that this is a book/movie. J.K. Rowling crafted the plot to make it exciting and suspenseful and to allow for Voldemort's ultimate plan at the story's end to unfold, hidden from Dumbledore, the Hogwarts staff, and Ministry officials, who, naturally, would intervene. Otherwise, how could Harry be captured, Cedric killed, Harry be part of Voldemort's resurrection, and the climatic duel with the Dark Lord in the graveyard take place? Sometimes facts/reality/logic, etc. are suspended for the sake of the story.
16th Mar 2021
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Question: When McClane asks Barnes to 'break the code' on one of the baddies' Walkie Talkies, Barnes tells him it is impossible as it is a 10 button device with a 6 digit readout..."There could be a million combinations!" How can there be a million combinations? Surely the largest number on a 6 digit readout is 999,999.
Answer: You forgot 000000.
Answer: Totally agree with the other answer, but also, someone saying, "There could be a million combinations!" can also just be a deliberate hyperbole, and never meant to be taken literally. It's like saying, "I told you that a thousand times already."
Except that a 6-digit code literally has a million combinations. It's not hyperbole at all.
Oh really? No kidding? Never disputed that there was one million combinations. The character, however, could have intended his comment as a hyperbolized, off-the-cuff remark that was not meant to be an exact number count. He said, "There COULD be a million combinations!" He did not say, "There are precisely one million combinations." He could have meant it either way. There was more than one way to interpret what he said.
This is a strange situation because the wording suggests that Barnes is using hyperbole ("there COULD be a million combinations..."), but mathematically the number of possible combinations with a 0-9 keypad and a 6 digit readout is exactly 1 million (10x10x10x10x10x10 = 1,000,000). So he is technically not using hyperbole but that was his intent. So it's both hyperbole and not hyperbole at the same time. It's kind of fascinating, actually.
3rd Mar 2021
Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan (2018)
Question: Why is Tom Clancy credited as an executive producer on this show considering he passed away 5 years before the show went into production?
Answer: As he is the author who created the Jack Ryan character that was adapted into a successful movie franchise, he could be credited as an executive producer for any TV or movie projects both before and after he died. It was announced in 2015 that the series would be produced for Amazon. Clancy died in late 2013, and he probably was involved in the series' earliest stages or discussions just prior to his death, and therefore would be credited posthumously. The title of TV or movie "executive producer" is fairly broad and can include one or more function, including securing financing, production oversight, creative input, script consultation, story concept, and more. Clancy's estate would likely continue to be involved under his name following his passing and receive profits and royalties.
While his estate would receive the profits, it's not automatic that Clancy would receive credit as a executive producer just because he wrote the novels. Authors like Michael Crichton, Douglas Adams haven't been credited as an executive producer after their death for use of their characters and works. Clancy's estate must be involved in the production in some way and rather than credit the estate, they credit the man.
Most likely his estate would be involved, through surviving family members, lawyers, etc. to act on his behalf in his name. No one said it was "automatic." It would have been a contract arrangement made while he was alive and that would continue posthumously. Whatever Michael Crichton or Douglas Adams did was a different arrangement for whatever reason they chose.
Nothing in your answer suggested anything about a contract arrangement (which if true would be the reason). You implied it was automatic. You said "as the author...he would be credited...for any...projects", but that simply is not true.
2nd Nov 2020
Fifty Shades Darker (2017)
Question: When Ana's car is vandalized, shouldn't there be cameras in the parking garage to show who did it and how they got in to the garage?
Answer: Considering that this is a private residential garage and not a public pay-to-park one, it would be reasonable to assume that there should be multiple security cameras throughout. Christian Grey is a particularly high-profile person who is always heavily guarded. There should be cameras aimed at where his vehicles are parked.
Answer: I ran a parking garage located at city hall and there was only one camera present, which was pointed at the booth/exit gate. There were never cameras in the garage to see accidents or vandalism. Plus, the recordings were never saved for more than 24 hours unless someone requested the recording be pulled before there were deleted.
17th Feb 2021
Friends (1994)
The One with Two Parts: Part 1 - S1-E16
Corrected entry: The colour of Chandler's suit changes from grey to green while he's trying to fire Nina. (00:11:25)
Correction: Chandler's suit changes because he's wearing different ones over multiple days. He attempts to fire Nina, then chickens out, then tries again on another day and fails, then finally musters the courage to do so on a third attempt after his boss confronts him.
No, if you watch the scene you will see that on the second attempt the suit changes colour between camera angles. This is not because it is different days.
I just streamed it again. I don't see that the suit changes color from grey to green, but it does look different when seen from either the front or the back view. However, it looks like this is just from the set lighting. There's a strong light source coming from the left-hand side that makes Chandler's suit look lighter from the back. The front is more shadowed.
Correction: He wears the same suit throughout the scene, but the light hits it differently when he moves around the office.
3rd Feb 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Question: Depending on child labor laws just how did they get the young Diana actress to do her own stunts?
Answer: Lily Aspell, (young Diana), performed many of her own stunts. She is naturally athletic and was already an expert equestrian rider (her parents and uncle are professional jockeys). Stunts are carefully coordinated, and she would never have been allowed to do anything dangerous. Stunt doubles perform the more dangerous action scenes. Often, CGI superimposes an actor's face over a stunt double's body. Safety harnesses and suspension cables are used and later removed digitally. Actors also perform many scenes in front of a "green screen" and special effects are added later to look like an extreme environment. I once observed a movie scene being shot. What looked like a wild car chase in the move was actually filmed with the vehicles driven at slow speed. The action was sped up during the editing process.
21st Jan 2021
Cast Away (2000)
Question: I recently submitted a "mistake" which revealed my own misunderstanding. The package that Chuck eventually delivers to Bettina had been sent to her partner in Moscow, which COULD explain its presence on a westbound trans-Pacific flight. Still, would a package sent from Memphis to Moscow be routed through southeast Asia? It would be shorter, and therefore faster, would it not, to send it across the Atlantic?
Answer: There are two packages sent by Bettina Peterson. The first we see goes to Russia to a man also named Peterson. The second never reaches its destination but we don't know where exactly it was being sent. That second package must have been going somewhere that required it being routed through Malaysia.
Agree with your answer, but something else occurred to me. Bettina appears to be sending out packages via FedEx fairly regularly. She is an artist, and may sell her work internationally. While she does create large-scale wing sculptures, she may also do smaller types of metal artwork, jewelry, etc. We assume she was only mailing packages to her cheating husband, but she could have been sending something to a customer in Southeast Asia.
I found an earlier version of the script that explains this. After rescue, FedEx looked at the husband's records, which indicate he had moved from Russia to Kuala Lumpur. The package on the plane was being sent from the lady in Texas to there. The FedEx people could not locate a current address for the now ex-husband, so Tom returned it to the sender address in Texas.
11th Jan 2021
The Sandlot (1993)
Question: Can a lifeguard legally throw a kid out of the pool like Wendy did to Squints after he kissed her?
Answer: Absolutely. In addition to having to administer life-saving measures, the lifeguard on duty at a public pool is also responsible for maintaining order. A kid purposefully diving into the deep end of the pool and pretending to drown just so he could kiss the lifeguard puts himself and others at risk. Anyone who doesn't abide by the pool rules can be kicked out by the lifeguard with no warning needed at all.
Answer: I would add to the other answer that inappropriately touching or kissing another person without their consent is an illegal act, giving the lifeguard the legal right to expel anyone.
I appreciate the answer, but the movie takes place in the 1960s. As much as I agree with you, that sadly wasn't the way things were then.
Even though it was the 1960s, it would still be illegal to touch, grope, or kiss someone without their permission. It would be considered a technical physical assault. Unfortunately, in that era, it was taken less seriously than it is now and the consequences were minor (i.e. a stern warning) to non-existent. The lifeguard was in the position of power at the pool, however, and she had the authority to eject anyone for that type of behavior.
Not in the 1960s. It was just a kiss from a little kid. It was embarrassing, not illegal.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Character mistake: When Barbara gives the hilarious back story of the wishing stone, she mentions that "Romulus, the last emperor of Rome, he had it on him when he was assassinated in 476." That's an amazing historical find in itself, because Romulus Augustulus (just "Romulus" is not really correct) was never assassinated; he had to abdicate the title in that year, but then lived the rest of his life in exile. It's worth noting that the novelization of the movie talks about Romulus, Rome's FIRST ruler, and his 'mysterious disappearance'. (01:27:45)
Suggested correction: Not a mistake in the movie for Barbara to give inaccurate information on history, since she is rushing through all of it without fact checking everything. He focus is the stone, not what happened to Romulus.
I don't see what's wrong with saying it's a character mistake, really. By that logic, any bit of historical context provided in a movie could be incorrectly stated as long as it comes from someone who is in a rush. I find more interesting to report when something said in a movie for a serious purpose is wrong and not challenged.
She's not an educated historian, OK for her to be mistaken. If she however says wrongful things about something she is supposed to be an expert in, that's a character mistake.
It's not OK for her to be mistaken because when you specifically research for something (she has super-fast reading powers now and her task was to do some complex history research, it was not a random mistake playing Trivial Pursuit) there's no way to get that piece of information wrong; she is tracing the path the stone took, the fate of its last known owner is important. That being said, I don't particularly care about her status as expert (which she is, having done a specific research as said); dramatically speaking it's the bit of historical context the movie provides, it should not have mistakes in it when they do not have a payoff.
5th Jan 2021
Broken English (2007)
Question: When Nora drinks with Nick Gable at the bar, she says "You know what Hugh Hefner says about ____? That 3 are too many and one is not enough." What's the word she said in the blank? What is she talking about? The subtitle was left out there. And from what I searched, this "Hugh Hefner" is a real person. The Wikipedia says he is an American magazine publisher. Is there a remark that became known to the public he has ever said? (00:14:10)
Answer: She appears to actually be paraphrasing author James Thurber: "One martini is all right. Two are too many, and three are not enough." Hugh Hefner was the publisher of Playboy Magazine, but he doesn't seem to be the one who made this quote.
Chosen answer: The word she says is "breasts." I've never found it attributed to Hugh Hefner though. The quote seems to have originated from the film "The Parallax View" where Gail says "They say a martini is like a woman's breast: one ain't enough and three is too many." It's been re-quoted in several different places and has nothing to do with James Thurber. She's just saying it as a joke and I think they used Hefner's name since it sounds like something he might say since he founded Playboy, but also so Nick could say "he's one to talk, he has 19 girlfriends."
There are Internet sources showing that the original quote being paraphrased is by James Thurber: "One martini is all right. Two are too many, and three are not enough."
Yes, but that's not the joke and has nothing to do with the scene. They're two different quotes and the latter one has nothing to do with Thurber's quote. His quote is not being paraphrased at all.
Yes, but the way your response is worded makes it sound as if the quote never had anything to do all with James Thurber. Brian Katcher was citing it in his response to give context to the joke's origin and how it is being paraphrased, not the joke itself.
Yes, the quote in the movie, despite not being credited to Hefner, IS NOT Thurber's quote. Brian just brought up a random quote that had nothing to do with the scene or the question.
6th Apr 2017
Double Jeopardy (1999)
Plot hole: For a convicted murderer who violated her parole and assaulted her parole officer while escaping custody, Ashley Judd moves around the country and even boards airplanes with little to no problems.
Suggested correction: She was simply careful. There's constant manhunts for much more serious felons and parolees on the lam who seem capable of moving around without getting caught.
How did she keep the gun if she flew across the country?
She could have checked the gun in her luggage. Most countries and airlines allow that.
But what about having to go through metal detectors and placing anything she's carrying with her through an X-ray machine? Either one of these would have caught her with an illegal weapon. Don't airports always check luggage to ensure nothing dangerous is being taken on board a plane?
In the United States, it is perfectly legal to carry an unloaded gun and ammunition in checked baggage. You are required to declare it and to store it in a locked, hard-sided container.
30th Jun 2010
Sex and the City (1998)
Hot child in the city - S3-E15
Corrected entry: When Jenny and her friends greet Samantha and the girls at the restaurant, Jenny says 'I didn't know you knew Carrie Bradshaw.' But she also mentions that she loves Carrie's column, implying that she reads it every week. If Jenny really was reading Carrie's columns on a regular basis; she would already know that Samantha is one of Carrie's best friends, as Carrie writes about her constantly. (00:12:35)
Correction: It is never mentioned that Carrie refers to her friends in the column by their full names, nor would she likely do so, therefore Jenny would not know that it's the same Samantha.
Carrie's column was based heavily on the lives and adventures of herself, and her friends. She used their full names during voiceovers, showing the content of her published writing. Samantha is not a common name, and she wouldn't likely be referring to another Samantha. Obviously this is a plot contrivance for the scene. If the girls regularly read Carrie's column, they would know that Samantha was one of her best friends.
25th Apr 2017
Passengers (2016)
Corrected entry: Given all the passengers are supposed to be in hibernation, and the hibernation pods are "fail safe", why would the ship's computers be programmed to announce scenic views in the middle of the voyage, such as passing the star Arcturus?
Correction: The pods were not "fail safe" as evidenced by Jim's pod being opened due to the malfunction. Once Jim is awakened and starts moving around the ship, utilizing different functions, and so on, the ship's computer would be triggered and act as if all passengers have been awakened. It starts providing its normal services, such the hologram greeting Jim and giving information, entertainment, Arthur working as the bartender, and passengers being informed when there is an interesting astronomical event to watch.
Correction: The whole premise of the movie centers around the belief the pods are fail safe. If the engineers and programmers believed the pods to be fail safe, then there is no reason to program in sight seeing subroutines for locations passed in the middle of voyage when everyone is believed to still be in hibernation.
The ship, once it happened to be activated by Jim and Aurora for passenger mode, may have sensors that then identify and announce any scenic view it encounters on its journey. The ship follows a pre-set path to and from the planet, and every astronomical object would be catalogued in its computers, regardless of whether it was intended for passengers to see it.
25th Mar 2008
Friends (1994)
The One With The Flashback - S3-E6
Corrected entry: In the flashback episode, Chandler and Monica are in the bar (which is soon to become Central Perk) and Rachel is in the same bar with her friends before she is due to marry Barry. When Chandler overhears Rachel - a complete stranger - say she wants one last fling, he tries to flirt with her, but she dismisses him. Monica then says "I know her" and talks to Rachel briefly with Chandler present. In fact, as revealed in later episodes, Chandler and Rachel knew each other when he was in college with Ross and Rachel was in high school with Monica - in fact they even made out at a college party.
Correction: Then the mistake is in subsequent episodes, not this one. In any case, Chandler simply didn't recognize Rachel.
Or since Rachel was drunk at the college party, she has very vague memories and doesn't remember that night very well.
Rachel and Chandler had previously met several times before the college party and she was sober. Chandler was at the two consecutive Thanksgiving dinners at the Geller house when both Rachel and Monica were in high school. Rachel gave Monica hints on how to get back at Chandler for having called Monica "fat" the previous year. Rachel and Chandler should have remembered this.
9th Aug 2020
Double Jeopardy (1999)
Question: Why did the ex husband kill his former mistress turned wife?
Answer: Nick used Angie to help fake his death, frame Libby, and collect the insurance money which would have gone to their son, Matty. It's unclear if Nick married Angie, who became Matty's legal guardian, but he needed her to gain access to the money. He certainly didn't love her, and once he fully controlled the money, he eliminated her, as she was a liability who could have exposed him. I agree with the other answer that it also simplifies the plot by killing off a secondary character. It also shows how devious, ruthless, and sociopathic Nick is.
Answer: I don't think they explained it, but most likely for her insurance money which is the same reason Nick faked his death in the first place. But it's also possible her death was faked as well. Looking at it from the prospective of the writer, it seemed it was easier to kill her off or get rid of her somehow instead of her showing up at the end with Nick and there wouldn't be a way for Libby to kill her without facing jail time for it and it wouldn't make sense for Libby to just forgive her and let her go.
Angie's death wasn't faked. It was established and verified by the next-door-neighbor lady that she was killed in the house explosion while Nick and Maddy were conveniently away. Libby also researched old newspaper articles about the accident and the ensuing investigation. The articles also showed photos of the now-dead Angie.
Answer: Devil's Tower really is out in the middle of nowhere, and in one of the least populated states (it's "only" 90 miles away from Mt. Rushmore, but it's an incredibly boring 90 miles of mostly empty plains) so it didn't make for a convenient tourist attraction like other landmarks and thus didn't garner as much fame (it's actually much more famous nowadays, thanks to this movie). That said, the movie seems to have cleverly provided two separate "reveals" for this plot turn: those familiar with Devil's Tower will recognize it when Richard Dreyfuss knocks the top off his sculpture, giving it the distinctive "flat top" shape; then, only minutes later the rest of the audience will discover it along with the characters during the news broadcast. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this was set up deliberately keeping in mind the landmark's status of "kind of famous but not really THAT famous."
TonyPH
Your explanation (and the other answer) helps makes the overall plot more understandable. The French scientist, Lacombe, mentions that there were probably hundreds of people who were implanted with the Devil's Tower image in their minds. As pointed out, it is not a particularly recognizable landmark, which would explain why many never made the connection to it.
raywest ★