Question: So when we see Cheetah again she's sitting there seemingly human once more. Does she still have her other powers?
A nameless member
3rd Apr 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
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the broadcast or Wonder Woman telling the world to renounce their wish (it would also explains how all the wishes were rescinded without everyone having to be listening to Max).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.
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.
5th Sep 2020
Lucifer (2015)
Save Lucifer - S4-E9
Question: This is a question about when Maze walks into the room when Linda is giving birth. Is this what it would look like in real life in a hospital? It looks like Linda is giving birth in her hospital room (even though the sign says birthing room, the room looks set up for guests), there's only 1 hospital staff, and Amenadiel is in his regular clothes, no sterile or protective coverings. And, ignoring the fact that Maze would go wherever she wants, wouldn't a staff member at least try to stop her from going in or try to prep her for entry? Maybe the 1 staff member was prepping her, but it seemed like they added baby crying sounds to indicate she was in the process of giving birth.
Answer: At least as far as clothing goes, I was in regular clothes when my wife gave birth, only changing into scrubs when they thought we'd have to move to an operating room (but ended up not needing to), otherwise I'd just have stayed in them. The room was also pretty much a regular hospital room, but no doubt there were some birth-specific differences I wasn't aware of!
1st Sep 2020
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Question: In 1985-A, when Biff threatens to shoot Marty, Marty says that the police would match up the bullet with the gun. Biff mentions that he owns the police and that they couldn't match the bullet with Biff's gun. How could the police be unable to match the bullet that murdered George with Biff's gun?
Answer: Because he owns the police, and ensured the forensics were rigged.
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."