Question: How could Baracus have been in Vietnam, as flying is the only way to get there and he hates it?
A nameless member
18th Oct 2023
The A-Team (1983)
Answer: Vietnam is accessible by sea. Also, just because someone hates flying doesn't mean they can't just "suck it up" and do it, if it's important enough. If he was in the military, then he would not have a choice. His fear may have grown over the years. His A-Team members often sedated him and would even knock him out to get him on a plane.
29th Sep 2023
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Question: In the first scene, Marty and Jennifer leave 1985 with Doc and arrive in 2015. How is it possible for their older selves to be present in the future when they left in 1985?
Answer: Relates to the "branching timeline" interpretation of time travel. Basically they jump forwards to a future version of the timeline where they never left. When they return they make different choices and that branch doesn't happen any more, taking them on a new path. Alternatively (additionally), given that they do eventually return, that's all that matters. If they left somewhere at 10:00am, had time travelling adventures, but then returned at precisely the moment they left, at any point later they're still there like they never went anywhere.
22nd May 2023
Downfall (2004)
Question: Why is this movie parodied online?
Answer: The "Hitler in the bunker" scene is iconic for historical reasons, being something most people understand the significance of. Being subtitled in the film means it's very easy for people to keep the original excellent acting while simply replacing the words onscreen to change the context entirely. It also ends up being a bit self-reinforcing, once people get wind of it as a "template", they then start getting their own ideas. And there's the arguable "Streisand Effect", when the film company issued a wave of copyright takedowns in 2010, a lot of people "retaliated" by making and uploading even more.
Answer: Presumably, due to its popularity.
11th Aug 2023
Law & Order (1990)
Question: Once her zealousness is uncovered, why isn't Judge Karlin reprimanded for this and disbarred? And her cases looked into to see if any more had ridiculous sentences passed down.
Answer: Who says she wasn't? She's only in this episode. Her whole future couldn't have been covered in 40 minutes.
9th Aug 2023
Star Wars (1977)
Question: In this movie, the Death Star is barely completed. Until now, what motivated people, on multiple planets, to obey and fear the Empire? What stopped everyone from simply not accepting the Emperor and his organization? Similar to how Tattooine did not acknowledge the Republic during Anakin's childhood.
Answer: One simple answer is that even before the Death Star the Empire still had vast amounts of firepower at its disposal, Star Destroyers, Storm Troopers, TIE Fighters/Bombers. A longer answer is that like a lot of fascist governments it wasn't an overnight thing - he invokes emergency powers, makes the Republic population feel threatened and like he's the only solution, etc. He doesn't announce to everyone at once "I'm secretly evil and you are my subjects". I suspect also a great many people didn't notice a huge amount of change in their day to day lives - if they felt they had nothing to fear from any government they wouldn't object to the rise of the Empire until it was too late.
7th Aug 2023
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (2023)
Question: When Ethan and Grace are "racing" with the Fiat 500, the sound of the engine does not sound right. To me, it should be rougher. To me, the sound was more of an electric car, especially during gaining speed. Or, did I miss something?
Answer: While it looks like a normal Fiat 500, this is a specialised IMF car, as evidenced by the controls inside and its ludicrously high speed. It being electric is in line with that.
5th Aug 2023
Oppenheimer (2023)
Question: Were the scientists involved really concerned about igniting the atmosphere?
Answer: The short version is "no, not really". Much like in the film, the possibility was considered, a lot of calculations were done, and it was agreed by everyone privy to them that the chance was basically zero. Also like in the film: "what do you want from theory alone?" - it couldn't be guaranteed to be absolutely zero, but then the chance of almost anything happening is never absolutely zero. A 1946 report by three of the scientists stated: "whatever the temperature to which a section of the atmosphere may be heated, no self-propagating chain of nuclear reactions is likely to be started. The energy losses to radiation always overcompensate the gains due to the reactions."
26th Sep 2021
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974)
Question: I could swear when I saw it it had a different ending. The one I saw at the end Jeff Bridges dies in the car. And Clint Eastwood pushes him out of the car and leaves him on the side of the road, then drives away. But I can't find anything on that. Has anyone else seen that version?
Answer: You must be thinking of another movie, because as far as I know there is no different ending.
I totally agree with your answer. Sometimes movies do film alternate endings that may be used in different markets (i.e. Europe or Asia). Also, alternate endings are sometimes filmed after a test audience reacts negatively to the original one and they may show up in the DVD or director's cut. I didn't find any indication that another version was ever filmed for this movie.
I concur - I can't find any evidence of this alternate ending existing beyond some people claiming it does. Like other examples (Wizard of Oz ending with a shot of the shoes under Dorothy's bed, etc.) I suspect this is just a false memory, although no doubt some will argue that, trouble is there's no way to prove a negative.
You are absolutely correct. Just watched this film again for the first time since the 70's. Thunderbolt leaves Lightfoot sitting (respectfully) by the roadside before driving off! Hope you come across this comment one day.
Answer: I remember the scene of pushing Jeff Bridges out of the car as well. I recently watched the movie on Cable, and Eastwood just kept on driving with Bridges (dead) slumped in his seat. I could have sworn he pushed him out in some alternate version.
Answer: I saw the film on VHS tape 30 years ago and the ending on the tape had Clint Eastwood throwing Jeff Bridge off the cliff.
Answer: Mandela effect.
Answer: The one thrown out of the car was red pushing his friend out of the trunk of the car after he was shot Clint saw his friend die, and he drove off with him still in the car.
28th Jun 2023
General questions
There was a movie that had Bette Davis and Burgess Meredith. In the movie, they portray a brother and sister who are renting their house for nine hundred pounds a month to a married couple. The siblings also have their elderly mom living in the house and ask the couple to leave three meals a day outside of her door.
Answer: You're right, it is "Burnt Offerings." Bette Davis is the aunt, not the sibling.
Answer: Maybe Burnt Offerings (1976)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnt_Offerings_(film). They aren't brother and sister - the sister is played by Eileen Heckart. Bette Davis played Aunt Elizabeth.
You're both right. Thanks.
23rd Jun 2022
The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement (2004)
Question: I would like to know if Jon Walmsley aka Jason Walton was playing the guitar at Mia's 21st birthday party? (01:46:01)
Answer: Given that the only relevant result google turns up is this page, I'm assuming the answer is no.
7th Jun 2023
Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023)
Question: How old is Mayday supposed to be in this movie? It's supposed to take place 16 months (one year and four months) after Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, which makes no sense. Peter would've had to re-marry MJ in his universe just like that and nine months later, their daughter is born, so Mayday is three months old?
Answer: Who's saying they got married first? They reconciled, she got pregnant at some point, and they got married whenever. Do we even know if they are married? Mayday could be as old as 7 months. She's crawling and seems to have basic motor functions like pulling her hat down, so she's likely at the older end of that scale. While she's big-ish, she's not talking or anything, so she can't be that old. Plenty of younger babies still have a lot of hair, plus we can't be 100% sure how his universe works, in terms of child development or indeed be sure that time passes at exactly the same rate as Miles'.
Okay, you made a fair point on the whole marriage thing.
Answer: She is an infant; she appears to be around 3 or 4 months old.
19th May 2023
General questions
Are there any TV series that were cancelled before a complete first season was even aired? I am mostly curious about sitcoms and dramas/thrillers, not reality shows.
Answer: Honestly, there have been numerous TV shows cancelled before a complete first season was aired. Another great example is cult-favorite sci-fi series "Firefly," which was cancelled before the 14 produced episodes finished airing. "Emily's Reasons Why Not" is another good example. It's a romantic comedy series that was cancelled after only one of the six produced episodes aired. (The remaining five episodes never aired on TV, but were quietly released on a DVD set.) "Viva Laughlin," a musical comedy-drama series produced by Hugh Jackman was cancelled after only two episodes, and none of the remaining episodes have aired or been given a DVD release. "Mockingbird Lane," a re-imagining of "The Munsters," was cancelled after it's pilot was aired as a TV-special, so the remainder of the first season was never produced. There's honestly probably hundreds of shows that were cancelled before a complete first season was aired.
I was wondering if there are contracts that require the entire first season to be shown, before a network can decide not to show another season. I guess not, based on the answers here.
Shows being pulled mid-season isn't indicative of what other shows' contracts consist of. Some shows may have had it in their contracts that the entire season be aired (there are shows that get pulled mid-season beyond season 1). I don't have personal knowledge because that would be a lot of contracts to read to find out. So maybe someone does. But there's plenty of shows that don't produce an entire season prior to being picked up, so it's possible all the episodes produced were aired.
Answer: So, so many. Drive comes to mind - Nathan Fillion thriller about an illegal road race, only had a few episodes before being pulled off air. "Selfie" (2014) with Karen Gillan and John Cho was cancelled by ABC after only 7 episodes. "Do No Harm" (2013) cancelled after 2 episodes. The Dictator (2012) starring Christopher Lloyd only had one episode.
Answer: One of the shortest TV shows ever was the 1997 series "Lawless," starring former NFL player Brian Bosworth. It was cancelled after the first episode. Also, "Cop Rock," a TV show in the 90s, was cancelled after only 11 episodes. "When The Whistle Blows," a TV sitcom in the 80s, also only lasted 11 episodes.
Answer: There was a police drama roughly 10 years ago called Golden Boy. It was about the youngest police Commissioner in NYPD history and kept hinting at a department-wide shootout that led to the man's promotion. It lasted 13 episodes.
Answer: Another show was called "Brimstone" and had actors Peter Horton and John Glover. The show only had 13 episodes.
The 1963 ABC "The Jerry Lewis Show" was originally planned for 40 episodes in the first season. It went off after 13 shows.
Answer: Outlaws 1986, was cancelled after a few episodes. Sitcom In Case of Emergency, with Kelly Hu, was cancelled after only a couple of episodes.
10th Apr 2023
Friends (1994)
Question: Why did Ross out of nowhere say to Joey at the end of the show "How small are your feet?"
Answer: Earlier Chandler asked to borrow Joey's shoes, as his were too slippery to dance in, and he discovered that Joey's feet were much smaller than his. Ross then noticed the same thing at the end of the episode. Like a lot of TV show contrivances, it's a reveal which multiple characters conveniently discover around the same time for the sake of a gag.
26th Mar 2023
General questions
Is there a movie/show in which a male character says "Hey, it's me. You're probably wondering how I ended up in this situation"? I've watched a couple of Instagram videos that had this quote.
Answer: It's a common trope, taking various forms. Seemingly the first occurrence of this specific type of voiceover/flashback is from Sunset Boulevard (1950), starting with someone dead in a pool, and the dead character is the one who takes us back to show us what led to that situation.
Yep. Various films start with something similar, like start of the movie Ratatouille (2007), the movie Holes (2003), The Emperor's New Groove (2000), Spiderman (2002) and most episode intros of My name is Earl (2005-2009). None actually use that exact sentence though.
21st Mar 2023
Last Action Hero (1993)
Question: Arnold Schwarzenegger portrayed the Terminator in Terminator 2: Judgment Day. When Jack Slater is in a video store in the real world with Danny, why does the cardboard movie cutout for Terminator 2 show Sylvester Stallone as the Terminator?
Answer: I've never seen a scene with Jack and Danny in the real world at a video rental store. The video rental store scene takes places in the Jack Slater movie world. Since Slater is Schwarzenegger, Schwarzenegger doesn't exist in the movie world. So the Terminator is played by Stallone, who does exist in the movie world.
Answer: It's not the real world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6PBhdM9Ftg. Danny's in Slater's world and trying to find evidence of Arnold Schwarzenegger existing, but instead finds that Stallone has taken that role in this version of reality.
21st Mar 2023
The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023)
Question: Why is the Princess called Peach instead of Toadstool and why is the main villain called Bowser instead of King Koopa?
Answer: "Princess Toadstool" was used in the original English-language manual, but she was Peach in the original Japanese, and that name continued in later versions, being combined with Toadstool. Bowser was originally called "Kuppa", but presumably the English-language version resonated more with people, plus removed any confusion of "Kuppa, King of the Koopas", so the English version stuck.
Answer: Maybe the Princess's name was already Peach, but she just hasn't said since she was a baby. And Bowser doesn't just have Koopas in his kingdom; he also had other things, like all the yellow guys called by the name of Yoshi.
17th Feb 2023
Blade Runner (1982)
Question: Why do people in the film refer to replicants as androids and machines when (just like normal humans) they seem to be made of flesh and blood and are not mechanical?
Answer: This could start getting metaphysical but ultimately it's semantics. An android is a humanoid robot. A robot is "a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically". A machine is "a physical system using power to apply forces and control movement to perform an action". Note none of those definitions specify metal parts, or even being artificial. Human beings are machines, in the same way that human beings are animals, in literal terms, we're "just" biological machines, but we tend not to think of ourselves as such, because "human" is a more specific definition, and people like to feel that humanity confers a higher status of sorts. So it boils down to us vs. them, really - despite all of their many human traits, a lot of humans don't want to be conflated with replicants, so different terminology is used. There's also an argument to be made that as with a lot of dehumanising terms used in the present day, calling them machines helps to justify mistreatment, even though the replicants are just as capable of life and thought as humans are.
Answer: The replicants are indeed androids/machines; like Terminators, they are made to look human by adding human parts, such as skin and blood and even organs ("surrounded by living tissue", if you will). Unlike Terminators, however, they are not programmed simply to kill/destroy humans...they are simply "upgraded" versions of humans, who like all of us want to live with freedom and self-actualisation.
15th Oct 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Question: How are Captain America, Black Widow, and Black Panther talking to Proxima Midnight through the Wakandan cloaked shield? What's she looking at? Trees?
Answer: It's not a cloaking shield. It's a defensive barrier. There would be no need to have a cloaking shield within the city because anybody that's inside the city would seemingly already know that Wakanda is hidden.
The cloak is to hide the city. If Cap flew in and only saw trees...what is the Black Order looking at and talking to?
The cloaking shield is what hides the city from overhead view, so aircraft that fly over can't see that there's an advanced city hiding within what is believed to be a third-world country. The barrier around the palace is to prevent enemies from attacking. That's why the "space dogs" are being torn apart when they try to go through the shield. When it becomes apparent that they can get through the shield when they attempt to do so in large numbers, Black Panther orders a section of the shield to be opened in order to bottleneck the forces in so that they can't surround the palace and penetrate the shield from a side that's not as well guarded.
This wasn't an overhead view. They were flying low and in a straight line into trees that on the other side hid buildings that were the same height. They weren't looking down.
Irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is the Wakandans build that shield, and they can do anything they want with it. Perhaps the cloaking part is discarded to boost the shield's defensive capabilities.
That's an illogical answer: they can do what they want. Perhaps? Where is that in the movie? These are guesses not answers.
Are you saying they don't have full control over their own shield that they designed and can manipulate very specifically, as seen in the movie?
"Perhaps the cloaking part is discarded to boost the shield's defensive capabilities." - where is that in the movie? This website would not exist if every response was "they can do whatever they want".
It is when we are talking about future technology in advanced civilizations. This entry is also a question, not a mistake. There is a simple explanation for it, so that is the answer.
This is a theory not an explanation. An explanation would be backed up by facts from the movie.
There isn't an in-film "explanation", but that's a distinction without a difference. If in a movie we see someone in one place and then several scenes later we're shown them somewhere else, there isn't an "explanation" for how they've got there, but there might be plenty of perfectly reasonable theories about how - drove themselves, got a ride, took the bus, etc. This is a wholly fictional technology and the "facts from the movie" are that people can talk through it, just like they can choose to open specific narrow sections. So we take at face value that it's possible, because there's no in-film reason to assume it isn't possible.
12th Jan 2023
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Question: During training, Maverick says "The faster you navigate this canyon, the harder it will be to stay under the radar of these enemy SAMs." This doesn't make sense, shouldn't it be the other way around? (00:49:42)
Answer: I see your point, but he likely means that higher speeds mean they're more likely to gain height accidentally and be seen on radar. Basically flying faster makes precision harder.
7th Jan 2023
General questions
I watch a lot of 80s and 90s shows. I've noticed that when two characters sit on a couch, they often sit close beside each other, in the couch's center. It's not so unrealistic for a dating/married couple, a parent and young child, or times when a character needs to hug and comfort another. But in real life, if there is plenty of room on a couch, many teens and adults don't choose to sit so close together. Is this done for a filming reason? Or is my real-life experience odd?
Answer: It's usually done that way for framing/composition reasons, since it looks more aesthetically pleasing to the eye to see two people beside each other than on opposite ends of a couch. Things that may seem more natural, like sitting on opposite ends of a couch, just don't often look good on camera. Plus, it subtly indicates that they are close in some way, making it a good storytelling shorthand. (It's kinda similar to how in TV shows, if a scene is set during the morning, there's usually a giant, ornate breakfast out on the table that nobody actually touches, save for maybe grabbing something before they run out the door. Totally unrealistic, but it looks good on camera and is a visual shorthand to indicate it's the morning).
I'd imagine with older 4:3 ratio TV screens if people were at opposite ends of a couch the camera would have to be quite far back to see them both (easier on 16:9 widescreens), so it's easier to have them in the middle with a bit of space either side to make it symmetrical.
Answer: It was actually hinted early in the show's run that he wasn't afraid to fly until he was in Vietnam. Something that happened there made him afraid of flying. They revisited that again in the 2010 film, where it was Murdoc's insane flying of a helicopter that scared him.
That was my first thought - unless it's explicitly stated he's been afraid of flying all his life, it makes perfect sense that it was a fear triggered by a wartime experience.