Question: When Roy travels across the Martian landscape, he is in an enclosed buggy. Why aren't these used on the Moon, where they would offer greater protection?
A nameless member
13th Nov 2024
Ad Astra (2019)
23rd Jul 2025
Fantastic Four (2025)
Question: Why is the Silver Surfer a woman?
Answer: Shalla-Bal has been in Marvel comics since 1968, and is the Silver Surfer in Marvel continuities like Earth X and What If. Given that the Fantastic Four in this film are clearly from a different continuity from the regular MCU, it makes perfect sense.
27th Jun 2025
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: Does Marty end up in a loop? Since he saw himself vanish in the time machine after returning home, wouldn't that second Marty come back to 1985 and run to the mall to see himself vanish again? Thus, seeing himself vanish again only to return a week later and repeat the cycle?
Answer: From a single point in time, yes it's a loop. But no single Marty ends up in a loop. Marty goes to the past, has his adventures there, returns to the future, sees his past self go to the past, and then carries on living out the rest of his life. The "second" Marty returns, then the third, etc. Except they're all the same Marty, just seeing the same point in time over and over again.
You're right enough. Except they are not the same Martys. Each time a new parallel timeline is created. They all live a different life before going back in time. Each time a Marty returns, he sees a Marty who has lived a different life (although probably not as different as the first two) go back. In fact, the second Marty might not have succeeded. But the first Marty successfully took his place, so the timeline was not erased.
Answer: It seems that time travel in BTTF creates new timelines, rather than fitting into one single "master" timeline. However, it's hard, if not impossible, to give a definitive and satisfying answer to this and other similar questions, since the time travel rules are fairly inconsistent throughout the film and the trilogy. There are time travel films that try very hard to maintain logical rules and in which there is one single, unchangeable "overall" timeline (for example, "Time Crimes", an excellent Spanish film from 2007). BTTF and its sequels do not fit into this category; time travel is a device to explore the themes and characters, rather than a rigid and perfectly thought-out system. Since the time travel is merely a plot device, the filmmakers likely did not care about making sure it all added up in the end, so plot holes abound once you start picking it apart.
25th May 2025
Star Wars (1977)
Question: The events of this movie take place roughly 19-20 years after Revenge of the Sith, so why did Obi-Wan Kenobi age so much?
Answer: Obi-Wan was about 25 years old in the Phantom Menace. Ten years passed in Attack of the Clones, which would make him about 35 years old. About five years passed in Revenge of the Sith, which would make Obi-Wan about 40 years old. Twenty years passed at the beginning of A New Hope, which would make him about 60 years of age.
Answer: Ewan McGregor was 34 in Revenge of the Sith, but could pass for slightly older. Adding 20 years makes him 54, but if he was playing slightly older he could easily have been mid-late 30s in Episode III, so mid-late 50s by the time of Star Wars. Alec Guinness was 63 in Star Wars, so could reasonably be a few years younger, character-wise. Coupled with living a hard life on a desert planet, and his age/appearance line up pretty well.
24th May 2025
General questions
Looking for a black-and-white movie in which a young woman doesn't want to believe that her uncle is a criminal. I am pretty sure that his name ended in a "y" or "ie" sound, like Billy. I only saw part of it at a family member's house. Thanks.
Answer: Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt (1943)?
Thank you.
30th Apr 2004
The Negotiator (1998)
Question: I think Nathan is played by Paul Guilfoyle, however, after checking and double-checking I can't see Nathan on the end credits. Am I right, and does anybody know why he wasn't credited?
Answer: According to IMDB.com, Paul Guilfoyle did play Nathan, though he wasn't credited for the role.
Any specific reason as to why Paul Guilfoyle was not credited in the Negotiator movie?
There are many reasons that an actor won't be credited for his/her role in a film. They may not have been happy with their performance, or maybe thought the finished film wasn't all that good, or they thought their part in the film might have overshadowed more deserving performers - the list goes on and on. Jack Nicholson was not credited for his role in "Broadcast News", even though he had a prominent and important role, and nobody seems to know why. Go figure.
7th Aug 2016
Ice Age (2002)
Question: The end of the movie shows Scrat and his acorn frozen in and eventually thawed from a block of ice 20,000 years later. How did he come back for the sequels?
Answer: The sequels take place before he was frozen.
That's not true. If the movies made later were prequels, how would the characters all already know each other?
Good Lord, people are overthinking this, hahaha. It's a silly animated movie series primarily aimed at children. It's OK if the Scrat character doesn't have super-concise continuity. It'd be like getting upset over the Looney Tunes not having strict continuity.
That one scene is set much later than the other films. The sequels aren't prequels.
22nd Mar 2004
Die Hard (1988)
Question: Can someone please explain the scene where McClane and Hans are alone near the roof. Hans says his name is "Bill Clay" and the camera zooms in on a board with the name Clay on it. What is the significance of this? Does this give Hans away? And if so how?
Answer: No, this doesn't give Hans away - the zoom represents McClane checking the board out - getting proof that there is indeed a person in the building with that name (listed as W. Clay, for William). Hans has obviously done his homework, but McClane doesn't trust him anyway, hence the trick with the empty gun.
Actually, it said "Wm. Clay", which is for William. W. Clay could have been for Wanda or Walter or Wesley or Waldo, etc.
It's most likely "WM" for William Mark Clay or similar - no reason William would have an extra letter tacked on but others wouldn't.
Wm is commonly the initials for "William", as opposed to W for "Will." On the board, it shows WM simply because they don't have/use any lower-case letters; they're all block letters.
Answer: John already knew what Hans looked like. He saw him through the vent on the top of the elevator (after sending Karl's brother down wearing the sweater) - He also saw Hans shoot Takagi (which is why he says "Just like you did with Takagi" after Hans says he's gonna count to three).
He never sees Hans' face in either scene. In fact, once the scene where they meet on the roof was added (midway through filming, once the director realised Alan Rickman could do a passable American accent), the scene where Hans shoots Takagi was reedited in such a way as to be clear that McClane never gets a good look at Hans' face, only hears his voice.
18th Dec 2009
First Blood (1982)
Question: I actually have two questions about this film. Firstly, does Rambo actually kill anyone in this film? Dennehy doesn't die and he didn't kill Galt so was there anyone else? And secondly when Rambo arrives at the cliff face, why didn't he simply run to his right or left? The police were only coming at him from behind (and even if one of them came from the side, Rambo could have used his skills to get past him). So why did he feel that going down the cliff was his only option?
Chosen answer: No he doesn't kill anyone. He didn't know if he was surrounded or not and if he did encounter one from the side they might have shot him.
Rambo killed Galt, albeit indirectly and unintentionally. In the US, "manslaughter involves causing the death of another person in a manner less culpable than murder." Rambo was responsible for throwing a projectile that struck the helicopter, causing the pilot to lose control resulting in Galt falling to his death.
But if Galt had been buckled in, he'd have lived. He was behaving recklessly. Yes Rambo's rock was involved, but that's two steps removed from Galt's death. Rock thrown -> pilot overreacts -> Galt falls because he wasn't strapped in properly. Galt's own behaviour and the pilot's reaction are more at fault than Rambo. This isn't a court, by most reasonable standards Rambo didn't kill Galt.
23rd Jun 2024
Pacific Heights (1990)
Question: Can someone explain the scene where Patty tries to get a $5,000 loan, but she would need to deposit $5,800 to qualify? As she herself points out, she wouldn't even need a loan if she had $5,800. The employee might not be friendly, but the offer still doesn't make sense if the company wants to be in business.
Answer: A reputable bank requires borrowers to have an adequate income, a good credit rating, and some type of collateral (property, investments, other assets, etc,) above the amount of the loan in the event the customer defaults. It's been years since I've seen the movie, so I don't remember the timeline of events or what the loan was for, but if Patty and Drake had already bought the house, that could be used as collateral, though they might not want to risk it for such a low amount. If they hadn't bought the house, and had no other assets, it's highly unlikely they'd qualify for a loan.
And plenty of people might not "need" a loan because they've got the money saved, but they'd rather take out a loan and make predictable monthly payments they know are well within their means, rather than eat into their savings, leaving them with no safety net if some financial emergency hits.
This is still unrealistic and made up only for the film. No loan company would ever ask a client to put down a payment of that extravagant amount in order to get back the same amount of what they're asking for a loan for. Why on earth would a person take out a loan in the first place if they didn't actually need the money?
17th Sep 2021
Hogan's Heroes (1965)
Question: Who was "Nimrod"?
Answer: Nimrod's actual identity was never revealed in the series. It was only known that he was a British intelligence agent. Nimrod was not Colonel Klink. Hogan had only implied it was him as a ruse to get Klink returned as camp commandant, not wanting him replaced by someone more competent who would impede the Heroes war activities. The term "nimrod" is also slang for a nerdy, doofus type of person, though it's unclear why that was his code name.
"Nimrod" is originally a king and hero mentioned in the Tanach and taken into the Bible and the Koran. His name is often used in the sense of "stalker," "hunter," and sometimes figuratively as "womanizer" as in "hunter of women." I've never seen it used to denote a nerdy person, and although I cannot disprove that connotation, I think given his role, the traditional meaning is more likely the intended one.
It's widespread enough that Wikipedia has an entire section on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod#In_popular_culture
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.
19th May 2024
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: What was the point of changing "Twin Pines Mall" into "Lone Pine Mall"? This change doesn't affect the series' plot at all, so what was the reason behind it?
Answer: Just to show how actions in the past have had a knock-on effect on the future, giving audiences a heads-up that things have been changed. Alternatively, just a fun thing for audiences to notice.
Answer: It's a small but noticeable change in the timeline as a result of Marty's time travel. The first we see when he returns to 1985, confirming that his actions have altered the present. It was originally called "Twin Pines Mall" because there were originally two pine trees; Doc reminisces about "Old Man Peabody" trying to breed pine trees on the land where the mall stood. When Marty travels back to the same place in 1955, it's Peabody's farm, and making his escape, he runs over one of the two pines (and we see the mailbox with the name "Peabody" on it). Therefore, when he returns to 1985 having destroyed one pine, the mall is now "Lone Pine Mall", because in the new, altered present, there was only one pine tree, not two.
21st Apr 2024
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: Before the Clone Wars, what situations did Jedi handle most of the time? I only ask because at Padme's apartment, Obi-wan says it's not their job to investigate the assassination attempt. Anakin says that local security could guard the apartment; it's not a matter for Jedi. So apparently, Jedi don't watch over people nor investigate crimes. What do they do?
Answer: Their job is to protect the integrity of the republic with diplomacy and advice to politicians. They do not enforce laws or rules. They can also be security for senators or be taken to places in crisis to help resolve difficult matters (like the blockade of Naboo). They protect and secure. That was their job during the time of the 'old' republic.
So, in a way, are the Jedi similar to involving the FBI in a situation, instead of contacting your town/city/county police?
Maybe more like UN Peacekeepers.
1st Feb 2024
General questions
What are some movies that took an unusually long time to film and release?
Answer: The movie "The Plot Against Harry" was shot and completed in the late '60s. It didn't get a proper release until 1989.
Answer: The Outlaw. It was made in 1941 but was not released because the Hollywood Production Code didn't like the way it featured Jane Russell's breasts. It was released for seven weeks in San Francisco in 1943, but pulled because of complaints from the Legion of Decency. It was released in 1946, in Chicago, Georgia and Virginia, with six minutes of footage cut from the film. They had trouble advertising it so it ran in a limited number of theaters. However, it sold out all showings making a tidy profit. It was released again at the beginning of 1947, in one theater by the end of the year it made $2 million. It was released again in 1950 in 25 theaters. There was a release in 1952. By 1968 it had grossed over $20 million.
Answer: The John Wayne movie, "Jet Pilot", was made in 1950 and didn't get released until 1957. David O'Russell's "Accidental Love" began production in 2008 and was released in 2015. Another is "My Apocalypse" that was filmed in 1997 and released in 2008. "Tulip Fever (2017) " also took several years to reach theaters after undergoing extensive editing and recutting. It failed at the box office.
Answer: The film, "The Other Side of the Wind," by Orson Welles, currently available on Netflix. It was shot between 1970 and 1976, then only partially edited by Orson Welles (due to many complications) before his sudden death in 1985. His final film was completed and released in 2018.
Answer: "Roar," written and directed by Noel Marshall, took five years to film. It wasn't worth the effort.
Answer: Boyhood from Richard Linklater comes to mind, which was filmed over 11 years from 2002 to 2013, so a child growing up could be depicted accurately with his own and parents' aging, etc.
Answer: Castaway. They filmed Tom Hanks' scenes as a chunky, middle-aged executive, then paused for a year while he lost weight and got buff for the scenes where he had been stranded on the island for a while.
Answer: There is a movie called "Dark Blood". It was released in 2012, but they started making it in 1993. Unfortunately, the star of the movie River Phoenix (older brother of Joaquin Phoenix) died due to a drug overdose when the movie was 80% finished, and the movie was shelved for 19 years. They eventually finished the movie when the director pulled the negatives out of storage to prevent them from being destroyed because the insurance company refused to keep paying for the storage.
5th Jan 2024
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: The ending of Back to the Future, Marty says he's not going to the lake as the car is 'wrecked'. All the family react as if he's talking about the BMW. They rush out and see it is fine. But they know Marty has the Toyota truck - why would they not think he meant his car is wrecked'? I know he says car not "truck" but he's talking about going up to the lake - he wouldn't be going in his Dad's BMW. So is this a mistake or bad script writing? (01:49:00 - 01:51:00)
Answer: Why wouldn't he go in the BMW? Going to the lake doesn't mean off-road driving, it might be a nice paved road all the way to a touristy spot. I don't think it's a mistake or bad writing.
Answer: It would've simply been down to the pure shock of what Marty was saying. The second he said "The car's wrecked", they dropped what they were doing and went to check. They didn't even care about the first part of Marty's sentence at this point, as all that was going through their heads would've been "Has something happened to the car?"
9th Dec 2023
Ted 2 (2015)
Question: In one scene, there's a newspaper that says "Wednesday, August 26, 2015" at the top. Why would it say that when this film was released on June 26 of that year?
Answer: Films are basically never set exactly when they're released. Most likely they just picked a random date around the likely time of release, but scheduling changed. Alternatively they just picked an arbitrary date in the future for the newspaper, but a date in the recent past would have worked just as well.
19th Oct 2023
The Simpsons (1989)
Homer's Triple Bypass - S4-E11
Question: Bart and Lisa say they don't feel highs and lows because their generation watches MTV. Can someone explain more?
Answer: I think Lisa and Bart are actually referring to Generation X and early Millennials. People of these ages are also known as "the MTV Generation." They dealt with the political, social, and economic issues that were happening in the '80s and '90s. Many were also "latchkey kids" who had to be independent from an early age. They are known for being apathetic or even cynical, after growing up the way they did.
Answer: They probably mean that MTV has little to do with real life, and viewers became numbed and emotionally detached from reality by watching the contrived idealized images almost non-stop. It prevents them developing empathetic feelings toward others in their lives.
This episode aired Dec 1992, and given that it took 6-9 months to produce an episode, the writing took place early or mid 1992. MTV's first reality show, "The Real World", didn't air until May 1992. "Road Rules", MTV's 2nd reality TV show didn't air until 1995.
But that's all equally applicable to watching endless music videos, shortening attention spans. The fear is/was that constant "input" like that would slightly numb people to the real world, with exciting music/images being the only thing that generates an emotional response, in comparison to the more "boring" real world.
18th Oct 2023
Under Siege (1992)
Question: What exactly did Ryback mean when he told Private Nash that they "brainwashed him at Boot Camp"? I never understood that line all these years.
Answer: Boot camp teaches you to obey. As long as the person talking to you has a higher rank, you're supposed to say "yes, sir or yes, ma'am." You do what you're told when you're told. You don't question it. That's why he goes along with putting Ryback in the freezer instead of the brig. That's why he believes it when he's told that the gunfire is party poppers. That's why Ryback says he's been brainwashed. Because he can't or won't think for himself.
7th Oct 2023
Die Hard (1988)
Question: Were the terrorists intending to blow up the entire building, as opposed to just the roof, to fake their deaths? If that's the case, then how can they continue with the plan to fake their deaths if McClane already took some of the explosives on the lower floor?
Answer: They were planning to blow up just the roof, with the hostages on it, while they (Hans and crew) were safely below, to make law enforcement, the FBI, etc. think they'd been killed along with everyone else in the roof explosion. The plan was to then escape with the loot in the ambulance that Theo was driving and flee the country before anyone could discover their bodies were not among the scores of others. The former element was foiled by McClane's intervention on the roof, leading Hans to activate the explosives prematurely, while the latter was stopped by Argyle when he t-boned the ambulance and punched Theo unconscious in the parking garage.
But what would cause the authorities to think that the terrorists would be on the roof when it blew up? They could have been on the bottom floor for all they knew. I remember the movie quite well, but may have missed a line that clarifies to the authorities that they were going to be on or close to the roof.
As Hans says: "When they touch down, we’ll blow the roof. They’ll spend a month sifting through rubble, and by the time they figure out what went wrong, we’ll be sitting on a beach, earning twenty percent." I don't think Hans was expecting the authorities to assume they were all dead forever, just cause enough carnage and confusion that they can escape. The FBI might think they were dead, or if nothing else not know where they went. The bodies McClane had left behind might even help muddy the waters. They could then escape to a non-extradition country and live in peace, no matter if anyone figured out they were alive or not.
Shortly after he kills Ellis, Hans radios Deputy Chief of police Dwayne T. Robison. He tells him to get his "comrades" released. He lists off several actual terrorists, then tells Dwayne that after those people are released, the hostages will be taken to the roof and accompany them by helicopter to the airport. Later, Agent Johnson of the FBI tells Hans that his demands have been met and that helicopters are en route as requested. That's why the Feds think the bad guys will be on the roof.
Answer: Unlike the moon, Mars has an atmosphere, weather, and winds that can reach up to about 60 mph. Mars also has severe dust storms that quickly cover objects in a thick, gritty layer of toxic Martian soil. An enclosed rover protects the driver, equipment, and other sensitive instruments from the elements. This is actually a concern for when humans eventually colonize Mars.
raywest ★
But if there is hostile activity on the Moon, why isn't there more protection?
There are plenty of examples on earth of soldiers and similar being sent into situations with unsuitable or minimal equipment. Most likely hostile activity isn't significant enough to warrant a buggy redesign, and/or given the weapons involved, the only protection that would make any actual difference would be too heavy to be worth transporting to the moon, or impossible to make on-site. As such people take their chances.