Question: Why did Jack think the only option available with the gap in the freeway was to jump it? Wouldn't it have made more sense for him to at least try to ring Payne and explain what was happening? A simple "We've ran out of road, could you disable the bomb whilst we turn round" - Payne could still detonate it remotely so it's not like they could use that opportunity to unload the passengers.
A nameless member
12th May 2022
Speed (1994)
Answer: Payne is a raging psychopath. As long as he's alive, he can make more bombs.
21st Mar 2022
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
Question: I know that Sam Elliott, who played General Ross in 2003 Hulk, wanted to play him again in this movie. Why was he rejected and replaced with William Hurt?
Answer: Presumably because this movie was retooled into a reboot that wasn't meant to connect with the 2003 film. So bringing back main cast members might have been seen as being potentially too confusing at the time. (This was nearly 10 years prior to JK Simmons being cast again as J. Jonah Jameson, which proved audiences can go with the same actors being in reboots. But in 2008, it probably would have been viewed as being too risky).
I do think you're right, although it's worth pointing out that Judi Dench was recast as M in the rebooted 2006 Casino Royale after playing her in the Brosnan Bond films. Not sure if that was the first time that's happened.
That is true, although I'd consider it a slightly different circumstance because the Bond films are basically a singular linear film series following one main character, and it was made clear that "Casino Royale" was essentially a full-on reboot. Comparatively, the MCU is multiple different stand-alone "series" (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, etc.) that all tie together via crossovers, cameos and team-up films. They were probably worried that people would assume the 2003 movie was retroactively part of the MCU. (Which you could probably argue is now true given the establishment of the multiverse, and the implication that previous non-MCU Marvel movies are all canonical as part of the multiverse... but that wasn't part of the plan at the time this movie was made).
29th Jan 2011
Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
Question: When Clyde is about to die from the bomb, why didn't he just end the call on the phone he was calling from? He could have probably cancelled the detonation.
Chosen answer: Unfortunately, that wouldn't have done it. Once the phone on the bomb received the signal there was no going back.
Oh, and you know this how?
Because that's generally how cellphone bombs work. Nobody's on the other end to answer it, so it's not triggered by being answered. As soon as any call signal is received, game over.
3rd Jun 2004
Star Wars (1977)
Question: While perusing an art book on this movie I came across several foreign movie posters where the Death Star is shown with the laser dish in the southern hemisphere rather than the northern (almost as if it were upside down). Anyone know why this is?
Answer: Judging from the movies, the laser doesn't seem to have much of an aiming system so the whole Death Star might need to rotate so the dish faces its target and in some cases this could mean needing to be "upside down". Just a hunch.
Wouldn't an upside-down Death Star be problematic for the countless amount of Stormtroopers, Imperial officers etc. on it?
No more than for any other large planetary body. Either artificial gravity or it's large enough to create its own.
No, as demonstrated on the Millennium Falcon and star destroyers, the Star Wars universe has some form of artificial gravity.
It's space, there is no up direction.
When there is gravity, there is an up and down. I think in terms of spaceships north is usually taken as up and south as down, relative to an astronomical body. But only because most maps are made that way. Determining an up and down helps with a sense of direction.
20th Oct 2021
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
Question: Why was John, just before his death, terrified when he saw T-800? The previous T-800 protected him and even there was a bond between them. So, when John saw another T-800, he should have been either sentimental or happy to see the T-800 alive as it should have reminded him of the previous T-800. Why was he scared to see it?
Answer: Because he's not an idiot. He knows Skynet still wants him dead, if it exists, and he knows "his" T-800 was destroyed. Which means if another one suddenly appears in his life, the overwhelming likelihood is that it's another attempt by Skynet to kill him.
12th Oct 2021
Die Hard (1988)
Question: Can someone explain what the one Johnson agent meant to the other one when he said "it's like Saigon, ain't it slick?"
Answer: I don't remember the exact quote, verbatim, but using your wording, the proper punctuation would be "It's like Saigon! Ain't it, Slick?" The older Johnson is referring to Army Helo Ops in Vietnam. He's calling the younger Johnson "Slick", as a nickname. I believe the younger's response was something like "I was just a kid then" or something similar.
The younger one says "I was in junior high, dickhead". :-) Clearly not holding the older Johnson in especially high regard, or keen to make it clear he's not as old.
Answer: The elder Agent Johnson is a Viet Nam vet who excitedly says, "It's just like f***in' Saigon, eh Slick? The younger Johnson mockingly responds, "I was in Junior High, dickhead!" meaning he was too young to have served in that war. The older Johnson is comparing shooting at the terrorists (or just John McClane) atop the Nakatomi Tower to killing enemy soldiers from a helicopter in Nam. He is macho, has lost objectivity about the hostage situation, and is treating it like an arcade game. As pointed out in another answer, "Slick" is just a nickname, like calling someone "Dude."
Answer: "Like Saigon" could mean that under the circumstances, they were not likely to win or be successful in what they were trying to accomplish. Largely in the 1960s, the U.S. military was stationed in Saigon. While there, parts of the city were ruined or demolished by fighting. There was a lot of destruction in the Die Hard movie, and the situation seemed dire.
19th Jul 2021
The Terminator (1984)
Question: Why would the terminator carry his weapon unloaded? It's shown loading the pistol prior to firing. A machine without care for injury would be loaded at all times.
Answer: Having watched the movie again, this can be explained by the previous scene where the Terminator kills Ginger and her boyfriend. It reloads the pistol but doesn't chamber a round before Sarah calls and leaves the message saying where she is. The Terminator then puts the pistol down and quickly rifles through Sarah's belongings before leaving so presumably it only thinks to finish readying its weapons once it's reached the Tech Noir bar and has Sarah in its sight. Either that, or it's actually doing a brass check (pull the slide back just enough to confirm there's a bullet in the chamber) before firing.
You mean such a sophisticated and advanced killing machine can't keep count of the bullets and has to check if the gun is loaded? I know the terminator runs out of bullets many times in the movie, it's great for entertainment but not for verisimilitude. Of course, if the perfect machine didn't make mistakes the movie would last 15 minutes and be extremely boring.
Answer: It does carry its pistol loaded: it merely pulls back the slide in the nightclub scene, priming the weapon. As an infiltration unit, the Terminator would try to prevent an accidental discharge, and thus avoid drawing attention to itself until it's reached its intended target.
Although I'd argue a perfect killing machine would never discharge its weapon accidentally, how could it?
The Terminators are shown time and again throughout the series NOT to be "perfect"; they make mistakes that are unaccounted for in their manufacture/programming. They are continually improved upon from film to film, indicating that they are BEING perfected, but not perfect. There is a world of difference, perhaps an insurmountable one, between the idea of a perfect anything, and the actual execution of that perfect thing.
5th Apr 2021
Friends (1994)
3rd Apr 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Question: So when we see Cheetah again she's sitting there seemingly human once more. Does she still have her other powers?
Answer: She feels sad for letting her personal fears and greed for power consume her. As for getting home, like Robert Shaw said at the end of Force Ten from Navarone, "We have a very long walk back home."
Answer: The way I interpreted the ending (which is up for debate obviously in a different forum) was it was the act of Max Lord renouncing his wish which caused Barbara to lose her cheetah powers. It also caused every other unrenounced wish to be lost. Barbara wouldn't have been able to hear the broadcast or Wonder Woman telling the world to renounce their wish (it would also explains how all the wishes were rescinded without everyone having to be listening to Max). It's unclear if she lost her initial wish though (to be more like Diana). It's possible we'll find out what happened to her in a follow up Wonder Woman/Justice League film, but I highly doubt it.
Answer: No. When everyone in the world all renounced their wish, Barbara renouncing her wish would have resulted in her losing both her Cheetah powers and the ability to be more like Diana.
Well then why does she look sad for having done the right thing and how's she going to get home?
Sad because she's lost her powers, her getting home is her problem and not plot-relevant.
24th Mar 2021
Superman (1978)
Question: This question is about all four Superman films and Supergirl. When Clark and Linda become Superman and Supergirl, their civilian clothes immediately disappear. Has anybody who worked on the movies ever given any insight to what happens to the clothes they wear before they switch to their suits?
Answer: I'm saying what happens to their clothes in the comics, is what happens to it in the movies. Special Effects were not as sophisticated as today's, so you never saw where the clothes went.
Answer: In the original comics, they folded their clothes into small pieces and put them in pouches concealed in their capes. There was no CGI back then.
This question is about what happens to their clothes in the movies, not the comics. Their clothes just vanish.
The point is that given that's what happens in the comics, that may well be what happens in the films too, just either not shown or else they do it at super-speed so we can't see it happen.
31st Jan 2021
Batman (1989)
Question: Why is Robin omitted from this film?
Answer: According to screenwriter Sam Ham, Batman started out solo in the comics.
Answer: In addition to the other answers, it may also be a factor that around this time the "current" Robin, Jason Todd, wasn't very popular, to the extent that a phone poll was taken which ended up with him being killed off not long before this film was released. Batman was Robin-less in the comics from 1988 - 1991. Given Robin's lack of popularity and strong association with the Adam West Batman series, the filmmakers may well have felt that a clean slate would be a better approach.
Answer: Probably because this was the first movie in the series. It sets up the entire Batman premise and goes into Wayne's backstory before he met Robin. Adding Robin at this point would only clutter and confuse the plot. It would also slow the action and diminish the conflict between Batman and the Joker. Robin being introduced later allows for his own history to be better incorporated into the overall story.
21st Sep 2020
Top Gun (1986)
Question: Does anyone else think it was cheating for Jester to go below the hard deck after he was out-maneuvered by Maverick? He knew that it would be against the rules for Maverick to engage after he dropped below 10,000 ft.
Answer: Jester called "no joy" which ends the engagement. After that he can go below the hard deck, Maverick can't be credited with a kill that's below the hard deck and after the call of no joy.
In reality Jester's "No joy" ("I can't see you!") call would've been followed by Maverick's "Continue" ("I see you (and I'm about to shoot you down!")) and after that if Jester still would've gone under the hard deck the fight would've ended with a maneuver kill for Maverick. (enemy crashed into the ground). Only a "Knock it off" call would've ended the fight there and then.
Your answer is basically just explaining what Jester was trying to achieve, but didn't address the question of motive. Jester's claim was that due to an unsafe condition he needed to terminate the engagement, while Maverick believed he was doing it to avoid getting caught in a disadvantageous situation where he could be "hit." The movie makes it appear Maverick was right so Jester doing it was cheating. It would be like an athlete who is behind claiming an injury to end a match without anyone yet winning in order to avoid losing.
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.
The zoom to the board occurs before McClane turns around to glance at it. Most likely Gruber was improvising here - he heeded a name, scanned the board quickly and picked one off it.
He doesn't turn - the name board is just behind Hans to his left, in John's direct eyeline.
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).
Answer: It ties in to the earlier scene when McClane first enters the lobby and has to look up his wife in the fancy directory. It seemed like a pointless scene, but it establishes that the ONLY people left in the building are on the 30th floor. Bill Clay works on the 29th floor, and so isn't actually in the building at all. Gruber doesn't know this, he just picked the name, and that is how McClane knew he was lying.
The people on the 30th floor were attending the party, regardless of what floor they worked on, so Clay could have been there. I agree with Tailkinker's answer about Hans having done his homework. It appears that Hans had noticed Clay's name on the board and improvised a cover. As the others indicated, McClane wasn't fooled, though I don't think McClane was positive it was Hans. He'd previously only caught glimpses of Hans while in the elevator and also when Takagi was shot, but he did not see his full-face or close-up. McClane likely recognized his voice, even with the American accent.
12th Jan 2021
Titanic (1997)
Question: Is it true that James Cameron had a bossy attitude when filming this movie?
Answer: Yep. https://thestacks.deadspin.com/inside-the-punishing-dictatorship-that-was-james-camero-1821382488. He has a famous reputation for being hyper-demanding on set. Not necessarily unreasonably so, more expecting the absolute best from everyone 24/7.
Answer: On Howard Stern's radio show, Bernard Fox who played Archibald Grace VI in Titanic (1997), appeared. Howard asked they same question. Bernard replied, "He was a bit of a strict tough director, but only because he wanted the scene just right." Howard: "So he wanted the film to be exactly the way he envisioned it and wouldn't settle for anything less." I'm paraphrasing those quotes.
14th Oct 2020
Annie (2014)
Question: When Mr. Stacks was telling Annie what ingredients to use, and she had only heard of two of them, which two was it?
Answer: Probably steak and tomatoes. But there's really no indication which ones she actually knew (and might have been exaggerating).
Answer: I'm not familiar with this specific part, and I don't know what the third ingredient was, but I'd assume that an orphan during that time period never heard of or had the opportunity to eat steak.
Also, the reply was "Google it." You must also be thinking of a different version of the film since it's not set in the past.
Might be better not to offer replies until you've seen the specific part of the film, given your answer isn't really answering the question asked.
Bishop73 said "probably steak and tomatoes" - which is a guess. Without knowing what the third ingredient was, it is reasonable to speculate that orphans, especially during that time period, never saw, heard of, or had eaten steak. Yes, it is best to actually see that part of the movie, but this is a question that the answer can reasonably be based on conditions of orphanages and the low quality of food fed to them.
Except I made an educated guess based on knowing the scene and all 6 ingredients and indicated there was no in-film indication what the character meant. You still think it was only 3 ingredients and set in the past.
I have seen several versions of "Annie" but none lately. Whether there were three ingredients, six, or a hundred, it is still plausible that an orphan never heard of steak. Perhaps an orphan might know there is a category of food called " meat", and the "slop" in the soup was called "meat." Kids in orphanages were not treated well, were barely fed enough, and the "food" usually was not what would be called nutritious, especially when eaten day after day. Something like steak would not be likely to be served to orphans largely because the institution's limited food budget would be prohibitive - therefore, only cheap foods would be available and many orphans were hungry. Even in contemporary society, steak is not something likely to be served to kids in institutions like group homes.You might be surprised at the type of things kids who come from poverty situations don't know about. [Even some kids from wealthy families don't know that French fries are made from potatoes.]
None of this seems relevant to the actual question. Bishop73's answer was a reasonable speculation which was already qualified, and which you're nitpicking for no good reason. His other answer details all the ingredients involved and you're fixating on "an orphan wouldn't have heard of steak". We don't KNOW, so going on a diatribe about the hypothetical knowledge of orphans is way off topic. Not least because THIS version of Annie has her as a foster kid, not an orphan, and "that time period" is 2014. If you've got a better answer you can provide it as a direct answer, but excessively critiquing someone else's answer isn't helpful or productive.
There's a difference between knowing what steak is and eating it. There were 6 ingredients (not 3); fusilli, pancetta, steak, pomegranate, truffle, and sun-dried tomatoes. You think an orphan is more familiar with fusilli, pancetta, truffle or pomegranate over steak?
Yes, other than pomegranates.
If she was never exposed to steak, she would not know what it was.
Yes, if she was never exposed to steak she wouldn't know it, which is why I said there was no indication. But I can't imagine a scenario where an orphan wasn't exposed to steak, but was exposed to fusilli, pancetta, truffle or pomegranate. I'm an adult that's eaten a lot of different things and I've never had any of those 4 items (although I know what they are), so it's more likely an orphan knows steak, especially it the generic sense as opposed to a specific type of steak being mentioned.
2nd Nov 2020
The Blob (1958)
Question: The movie was made in 1958, why does the calendar in police station show July 1957?
Answer: Because movies aren't always set in the year they're released. Absent any conflicting information, the assumption must be that the events of the movie take place around July 1957.
21st Oct 2020
Quantum Leap (1989)
Star-Crossed - June 15, 1972 - S1-E3
Question: Al tells Sam that he's there to prevent the professor and his undergraduate student from having a shotgun wedding and ruining both their lives. That implies she got pregnant. Sam succeeds in keeping them apart. Um, does that mean he prevented someone from being born?
Answer: He means he's there to prevent there ever being the need for a shotgun wedding-that is, to stop the affair before there is a possibility of the girl getting pregnant.
Which would erase the child from history. That's my point.
Answer: Not necessarily; it could also mean that someone such as Jamie Lee's (the student) father discovered that the professor was having a sexual relationship with her and coerced the two into getting married.
This doesn't answer the question. You just described what a shotgun wedding is.
I think their point is that the "shotgun" aspect might not be due to a pregnancy, simply a forced attempt to legitimise an otherwise scandalous relationship.
My point was that a "shotgun wedding" doesn't always happen because an unmarried girl becomes pregnant; it can also happen because someone "stole her virtue", i.e had sex with her without being married or at least engaged to her. There's no reason to believe that Jamie Lee was, or would become, pregnant as a result of the affair or subsequent marriage.
The term "shotgun wedding" means a forced marriage due to unexpected pregnancy. It's sometimes even used when the woman is pregnant but it's planned or the wedding isn't "forced." In common colloquialism (especially in the 80's when the script was written), it doesn't refer to a force marriage just because of premarital sex (which the term "make an honest woman" is used for).
No, in the 1926 Sinclair Lewis novel 'Elmer Gantry', they talk about shotgun weddings, when a groom is forced to marry a woman because he took her virginity. Obviously, the term usually refers to a pregnant bride, but I see zendaddys point.
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.
26th Jul 2004
Cube (1997)
Question: Anyone who has the Cube DVD, is it really true that if you put the DVD disc upside down in your player, that there is another film on it?
Chosen answer: Having just tried it with my copy (Region 1), no, it doesn't appear to be true.
Answer: I have heard that you can often have a short film by the same director on the other side of the DVD.
Simple way to tell is if there's printing on top. For a DVD to be double sided, both sides will have the same blank shiny surface. Any writing, like the name of the film, etc. will render the top level unreadable.
11th Sep 2010
Predator (1987)
Question: Why didn't Arnold and the rest of the commandos take thermal goggles or sensitive listening devices with them on the mission; wasn't the technology available?
Chosen answer: It's the jungle: thermal goggles would have too much interference due to the high ambient temperature and sensitive listening devices would have picked up too much ambient noise from the wildlife. When filming the movie they had to hose the area down with ice water just to cool it off enough to get the footage for the Predator's heat vision. Presumably, his technology is more advanced than our own, so the high jungle temps didn't interfere. Plus of course, their original mission was meant to be very straightforward, with no need for high-tech equipment.
Answer: During the 1980's thermal googles worn on the face had not been produced. As far as the team wearing night vision goggles (infrared) that wouldn't have given them an advantage against the predators cloaking device. Infrared works off ambient light and they do not detect heat; there isn't much ambient light at night in triple canopy jungle and they are worthless during the day. The spectrum the predator used in the movie is thermal not infrared.
Infrared and ambient light are different. Night vision goggles use ambient light, amplifying whatever light there is, from the moon, stars, etc. Infrared and thermal are the same thing, working on heat rather than visible light.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: I'm curious why you think Payne would do anything to make it easier for Jack? He's set a bomb with the express intention of killing people if his demands aren't met...why would he give Jack even the slightest chance of escaping that? And even if he was willing to, just because Payne can detonate the bomb remotely doesn't mean he can disarm it temporarily, then turn it back on.
Because the odds of the bus making that jump intact were incredibly small - if the bus blows up because of an infrastructure issue, Payne gets nothing.
If this plan fails, just like the elevator job, then they play a different game the next day so Payne would just look for another scheme to get his money.
ctown28 ★
Payne had no way of knowing what way the bus was going to go. How could he have prepared for the exact circumstances that led to needing to jump the gap.
Ssiscool ★