Question: They didn't make it out of the cave with the grail because they dawdled... I wonder, would someone be able to make it out running at a dead sprint once they crossed the seal? And if so, does that mean that they're home free? Or would disaster follow them outside of the cave?
BaconIsMyBFF
13th Nov 2018
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
3rd Jun 2013
The Karate Kid (1984)
Question: Why wasn't Johnny disqualified for his own "illegal contact to the knee" like Bobby was? We know the ref saw it happen because he gave Johnny a warning. Never made sense to me.
Answer: The answer makes no sense since Johnny caught the leg and purposely rams the elbow into the back of the knee. There was no accident about it. Even the ref acknowledged this.
Chosen answer: Johnny attacked an illegal area which the rules accept may happen accidentally and so they have provisions for warnings and such in light of that possibility, whereas Bobby performed an illegal technique which cannot happen accidentally, and therefore the rules call for immediate disqualification.
That wasn't an accident; Johnny deliberately elbowed the back of the knee. But having him disqualified would be a terrible ending to a great film. The warning was for plot reasons.
Answer: The movie never explains this and it always seemed like an error to me. I've always reconciled it by saying that a flying kick to an opponents knee is considered so egregious it warrants an instant disqualification, while an elbow to the knee only draws a warning. Once again, the movie never actually says this so it's only speculation but it does make some sort of sense if you think about it.
Answer: I always took it to mean that the kick Bobby did actually put Daniel in a position where he was unable to continue, and that it was a definite attempt at maliciousness (at least in the referee's eyes), whereas Johnny's attack might have simply been an accident. Look when Bobby kicked Daniel's knee-the fight just started, and it wasn't an accident. When Johnny connected (Up to this point Johnny fought fairly and within the rules) they were in the middle of a match, and Johnny simply hit him illegally without intending to. When I used to train and fight in tournaments, I once got punched across the jaw by an opponent who got a warning. When he did it a second time a few seconds later, he was disqualified. It wasn't something that appeared malicious, it was just in the heat of the moment of the fight. Bobby's act wasn't, which is why he got disqualified. Johnny could have been in the heat of the moment, which is why he only got a warning. If he hit the knee again, he would have been disqualified.
5th Nov 2018
The Sandlot (1993)
Question: At the end of the movie, it shows Benny managing to steal home, being called safe, the catcher arguing that Benny was out and the umpire saying Benny was safe. In slow motion, it shows the catcher catching the ball and tagging Benny as he slides into home so why wasn't Benny called out?
Answer: The umpire got the call wrong in that case. It happens all the time in real life. It wasn't allowed back then, but now Major League Baseball and other sports leagues will use instant replay to make sure they get close calls right.
Answer: The catcher tags Benny on the chest after he touches home plate with his left hand. Safe.
Answer: The film shows Benny beating the tag. Although the ball gets there before Benny, the catcher tags Benny a split second after his hand touches home plate.
5th Nov 2018
Breakdown (1997)
Question: Why were they even kidnapping people in the first place? The ransom seemed like it wasn't planned and they only did it when they discovered that Jeff was rich. So if there is no ransom usually, why even kidnap couples to begin with? If it's just to rob them, then that doesn't seem very lucrative for the risk.
Answer: There was always a ransom, or at least that was always the intent. Anyone that didn't have money the kidnappers would just eliminate them. The kidnappers MO was to take a couple and force one of them to empty their bank accounts. Earl makes it clear that the difference in Jeff's case is that they were unable to kidnap the pair at the same time. For whatever reason, Jeff refused to get in the truck with Red, which caused the kidnappers to alter their plans slightly. Earl also gives some insight into how the group chooses their victims. He tells Jeff that he was targeted because he was driving a brand new SUV, which indicated he must have a fair amount of money in the bank. The kidnappers care very little about being caught, they have obviously committed many murders without being found out. They seem to leave very little evidence of their crimes for the police to find. Red is always several steps ahead of the police and is brazen enough to kidnap a man's wife and say directly to him in front of a police officer that the man must have him mistaken for someone else.
5th Nov 2018
Storks (2016)
Question: When masses of babies are made, where do the letters come from? Don't parents know the storks don't deliver babies anymore?
Answer: The movie implies that even though the storks stopped delivering babies, people still continued to write letters asking for new babies. The storks simply archived all the letters rather than destroy them.
8th Feb 2018
Silent Hill: Revelation (2012)
Question: Towards the end of the film, Heather steals the Seal from inside of Leonard, and we see him burn up. But the shot goes noticeably out of focus when this happens. What gives? The scene appears to be CG, so it makes no sense for it to go so badly out of focus. Were they just trying to cover up a dodgy effect?
Answer: I believe your theory is correct, it appears to go out of focus to help cover up some unconvincing CGI. The final explosion looks very cartoonish.
10th Jun 2018
Unstoppable (2010)
Question: When Gilleese sees the brake hoses are disconnected, why doesn't he just connect them there and then?
Answer: For intra-yard movements the automatic air brakes are supposed to be disconnected. The independent brake is what Dewey applied and is what is shown slipping out moments after he exits the train.
9th Oct 2018
Ready Player One (2018)
Question: Why was Sorrento's avatar's eyes glowing yellow when he first sees Irock then turn blue after he sighs? Was this a reference to Superman's heat vision? I don't get it. Does his Clark Kent looking avatar have those powers?
Answer: Sorrento's avatar's eyes are an indication of his mood. Blue is calm, but they flare yellow or orange the more agitated, upset, alarmed or angry he is. They only go completely red once - just before he sets off the Cataclyst.
Answer: Ironically, in a movie full of pop culture references in nearly every scene, this particular thing does not seem to be a direct reference to anything in particular. If this was supposed to be an indication of Superman's heat vision the color of the eyes would most certainly have been red, the color that is almost universally used for Superman's heat vision. The eyes seem to be yellow while Sorrento is in shadow and blue when he is not. Either that or the eyes just change color at random for no apparent reason other than Sorrento thinks it looks cool.
29th Oct 2018
Cast Away (2000)
Question: Does anybody know where the opening scene with the 'cowboy' is set? Definitely not in Moscow.
Answer: The scene with the "cowboy" is set in Russia. Bettina Peterson, the artist in Texas ships something (presumed by some to be divorce papers) to a man also named Peterson in Russia. If you pay attention the sign at the ranch has both Bettina and her husband's name on it at the beginning of the film but by the end the husband's name has been removed. What her husband was doing in Russia is never explained. In addition to the FedEx driver speaking Russian to himself, if you listen closely you can hear passersby speaking Russian as well.
2nd Mar 2014
Alien Resurrection (1997)
Question: If Ripley was operated on and an alien removed a few days ago, how come they have a fully grown queen who is laying eggs, 8 to be precise as there are 8 people who have been ingested and turned into aliens? But later, when most of the crew have ejected successfully or been killed when a hand grenade was thrown into their escape pod along with an alien, one of the scientists says there are 12 more? How can that be?
Chosen answer: Well firstly the queen was probably genetically engineered, like Ripley herself. A few days might be all the time they need to have a fully grown queen created. Secondly the 8 incubated victims were only the latest batch, they had been incubating people with xenomorphs for quite a time I suspect.
With regards to the quick growth of the alien queen, it is standard for the xenomorph in nearly every film they appear (Aliens is the only exception, the only chestburster shown in the film is quickly killed by Apone) to grow to full size in around one day. Presumably the same is true for the queen.
29th Oct 2018
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: When the clones arrived at Geonosis, why didn't Palpatine just execute Order 66 there?
Answer: Palpatine had a clear, detailed plan mapped out. First he was to become Chancellor by sympathetic vote after the invasion of Naboo. Then he would instigate the Civil War with the Seperatists in order to install himself as a lifelong Emperor while using Order 66 to wipe out the Jedi. Finally he would completely dissolve the Senate, leaving no-one left to challenge him. He needs the Jedi to fight in his proxy war with the Seperatists to dwindle their numbers and give the illusion that the clones are fighting for the Republic, when in reality they are fighting for him. When Palpatine finally does execute Order 66, it is after the war has left both sides crippled, with the Jedi at the weakest they've been in ages.
Answer: He might not have had such a plan in place at that time. He also wanted Anakin to eventually become his new apprentice, so he wouldn't want to risk him being killed by ordering the Clone Army to execute all the Jedi.
Oh he did have a plan, but I agree the biggest reason was that Anakin was still a Jedi and he couldn't execute the order until he had turned Anakin to the dark side.
He had a long-term plan to wipe out the Jedi, yes, but at this point I don't think he had any plan to kill them all from a logistical standpoint, especially given that he had just barely received the Clone Army.
The Sith ordered the clone army to be made and they were made specifically with order 66 in them, and Palpatine knew it from his former master (who manipulated Jedi Sifo-Dyas to place the order). It was always the plan to kill the Jedi. He just had to wait.
13th Dec 2012
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: For Doc to be so worried about corrupting the timeline in this movie (especially when it comes to falling in love with Clara) he surely doesn't seem to think twice about destroying the locomotive that will no doubt have a huge effect on the timeline. I doubt there were many trains on that railroad, with that mode of transportation now gone, Hill Valley itself could be wiped out.
Answer: Doc must have reasoned that the loss of the locomotive would have a minor impact on Hill Valley, if at all. The railroad company would likely have replaced the destroyed locomotive. Obviously Doc was correct as there seems to have been no impact on Hill Valley's economy whatsoever and the train lines continue to run into the 1980's.
Answer: Corrupting time was a worry for Doc, however, he also recognized that it was at least partially unavoidable. Otherwise, Doc would never even be able to go buy food, because how would he know that the meal he ordered wasn't one that someone else was meant to choke on? Occupational hazard of time travel.
Chosen answer: In the timeline that the original Marty and Doc came from, Hill Valley exists so that town obviously survived that incident. An accident already occurred on that day in their history. They just didn't know it was them that caused it.
That is not how time travel works in these movies. In fact, the entire series revolves around the timeline being changed whenever they travel into the past. There are no stable time loops. The train was not destroyed in the original time line.
It's tough to say whether or not the train wasn't destroyed in the original timeline. Maybe by some lucky chance the train would suffer an accident similar to that anyways maybe just a bit earlier. There's really no indication either way. It's also possible they build another train or had others in service. I doubt they didn't have some backup plan in case the train was out of commission for a long period of time or destroyed.
25th Oct 2018
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
Question: After finishing the game, did Spencer, Fridge, Bethany, and Martha still have detention or did changing the timeline prevent them from their punishment?
Answer: They still had detention. The only thing that changed was Alex. But since they had become such close friends, detention would hardly be a punishment for them anymore.
It seemed like they just simply walked out of detention. I mean, did they finish their detention or did they have to continue on a Saturday?
The movie doesn't explain. But regardless, it also really doesn't matter.
They probably didn't go back on Saturday. When they go back to school, Spencer acts like he hasn't spoken to Martha since their adventure, while Bethany says she's been texting Martha 'all weekend'.
25th Oct 2018
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
Question: What does Fridge do now if he's still kicked off the football team by the end of the movie? It seems that only Spencer, Bethany, and Martha had some character growth, but not Fridge.
Answer: Fridge absolutely had character growth. He learned to value others as actual friends instead of using people to make his life easier. He learned to have respect for less popular students. He learned that physical strength can't solve all your problems. He learned the true value of teamwork. He never would have learned any of these lessons had he not played Jumanji.
What about Spencer? What kind of character growth did he have?
Primarily he gains confidence and self-esteem. He learns to be more decisive but also seems to have much more courage than before.
The claim that he wouldn't have learned these lessons if he'd not played Jumanji is unfounded speculation. There's no way of knowing what his life journey would have been otherwise.
Answer: Spencer learned to be more confident in himself.
24th Oct 2018
Toy Story 3 (2010)
Question: How come Andy didn't give his old toys to Molly?
Answer: More than likely she didn't want them. Besides Barbie the toys never really speak of Molly at all, so it's likely she rarely ever played with them, if at all.
Answer: Then why does Andy have Mrs. Potatohead? From what I remember Molly got Mrs. Potatohead for Christmas at the end of the first movie so shouldn't she belong to Molly?
It is suggested Molly hardly played with Mrs. Potato Head and she was kept alongside Mr. Potato Head in Andy's room since then. The rest of Andy's toys are mostly "boy" toys, so Molly may well not be interested in them anyway.
Either Andy borrowed or even kept it in case Molly didn't need it or want it.
18th Oct 2017
Aladdin (1992)
Question: When the genie learns that Aladdin tricked him into getting them out of the cave without making a wish, couldn't he have just teleported Aladdin, Abu, and the carpet back inside the cave to make sure Aladdin wishes himself out of the cave?
Answer: He is not an evil genie and, even though he was tricked, he would not have wanted Aladdin to be trapped in the cave again. He likes Aladdin and admires his cleverness in getting himself out of the cave without wasting a wish.
What I was wondering is why he likes Aladdin.
"He is not an evil genie" who says only an evil genie would teleport Aladdin, Abu, and the carpet back inside the cave to make sure Aladdin wishes himself out of the cave?
6th Feb 2018
Rocky (1976)
Question: How accurate is the boxing depicted in the movie compared to real boxing?
Answer: It's pretty inaccurate. Real life fighters would tire out long before the 15th round after throwing so many haymakers (knock out punches). The amount of punches that connect clean without a knock out is also unrealistic. Creed doesn't seem to ever miss with his punches. Even an inexperienced boxer should be able to see at least a few punches coming and move to avoid them, Rocky seems to have no defense at all. The reaction to being punched is exaggerated for dramatic effect (Creed being lifted off the ground due to the power of Rocky's body punches, Rocky's head being thrown back due to the power of Creed's jab). It is also likely, though this is debatable, that the fight would have been stopped prior to the 15th round as both fighters could hardly stand going into that round.
21st Oct 2018
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Question: Why did Qi'ra choose to kill Dryden Vos and spare Han? Was it because she loved Han, or simply because she decided that she would rather work for Darth Maul instead?
Chosen answer: Qi'ra's motivations are purposefully vague. It could be she killed Vos because she loved Han. It could be a simple power play, as she did not like being a slave to Vos. It could be a combination of both: she was able to save Han and also gain a position of power by killing Vos. We'll likely never know the answer as a follow up to Solo seems unlikely at this point.
27th Aug 2013
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Question: One of the taglines for this film is "It's nothing personal". I have no idea what that has to do with the film and was hoping someone could explain it.
Chosen answer: Two possibilities. 1: The Terminator is emotionless, so the killing isn't personal, but rather what it's programmed to do. 2: Sarah Connor's plan to kill Miles Dyson to stop Skynet's creation.
It's also a sly nod to another famous tagline, Jaws: The Revenge. "This time it's personal."
28th Mar 2007
The Fast and the Furious (2001)
Question: When Dom and Bryan return to Dom's house after the police chase, Vince sees Bryan and asks Dom why he brought the "buster" there. What did Vince mean by calling Bryan a "buster?"
Answer: "Buster" is a slang term for someone who thinks they are cool but are not. It's kind of like saying "wannabe." It can also be generally used to simply describe someone uncool, without the pretense. In this context it is most similar to "dork." Either applies in Bryan's case, at least in Vince's eyes.
Answer: Because Brian busted his car in the race.
Chosen answer: Calling him "buster" implies that he was the one that got them all busted. Like being a "narc" or an informant.
Answer: The implication is that disaster would follow them outside of the cave as well. It wouldn't make much sense if you could simply outrun the disaster.
BaconIsMyBFF
"Followed by disaster" is a kind of curse, a thing not common in Christianity. It doesn't make much sense anyhow. A seal is just a dot - OK, so let's at least grant that the seal represents a circle that the grail has to stay in. Who decided where those borders are? The grail was taken there during the first crusade. That was closer to 1938 than it was to 33 AD. The three knights could move the grail about then. Why not afterwards? The knights could have built the traps. But the borders could only have been set by god, in an unusually late and completely atypical miracle.
Spiny Norman
There are several examples of curses in the Christian Bible: Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at Sodom, the plagues visited upon Egypt, Adam and Eve are cursed for eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, etc. The knights did not move the grail around after finding it, they stayed in the temple for 150 years and then two left leaving the third behind. The great seal and it's restriction was already in place when the knights got there.
BaconIsMyBFF
Where in the movie is that stated? I interpreted the knight's story as them having made that place. Looks like it isn't actually specified. But if God made it, then I submit that he would have used Greek, not Latin, for the stepping stones. (All of those curses are from the old testament. The book where god kills firstborn children as long as they're Egyptian. Grail is by definition new testament where you turn the other cheek. There simply are no curses in the gospel, that's just not how Jesus rolled).
Spiny Norman
The tests were made by the knights, but the seal had God's power in it. Just like the cup.
lionhead
It's still a bit dodgy. What if you take a shovel and dig yourself a back door? Basically this film really excels at stuff that makes no sense but helps the storytelling, or to be precise, creates dramatic effects.
Spiny Norman
Every fictional story is like that in some way. That's why it's called fictional. It's just a story.
lionhead
Not a particularly convincing argument, "stuff happens for no reason all the time", if I may say so. Why is this website even here then? The fact is that some stories are more coherent than others. (♫ "In olden days, a hole in the plot, would seem to matter, quite a lot. Now heaven knows, anything goes..." ♫);).
Spiny Norman
It's the difference in what story they want told. Is it a fairy tale or based on actual events? A huge difference in plausibility between the two. The site is there to look at mistakes, not how believable the story is.
lionhead
It is not set in another universe so plausibility isn't somehow suspended. Maybe take a look at the categories recognised by this website. Plot holes, factual errors, even stupidity. (They? Who are they?).
Spiny Norman
It is set in a fictional universe because it's not a true story. With "they" I mean the writers/director. Mistakes in a plot (plot holes) have nothing to do with how believable the story is. As long as it's plausible, it's not a mistake.
lionhead
Pretty sure it's the same universe, just with some added characters/events. What about the total lack of spaceships or orcs or talking animals for example? The seal business is not a mistake YET, but it's very dodgy because no-one knows how it works or why. Like all Indys "trapped" secret places, it's (among other things) unclear who resets the traps for the next visitor. We can't brush it ALL off as "the hand of god" every time.
Spiny Norman
Huge amounts of stuff in films isn't exhaustively explained. Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that's perfectly believable. There's zero evidence either way to say how "followed by disaster" would manifest, and just because there's not a thorough explanation doesn't mean that it's "dodgy", and it's not worth bickering about either, because there's no concrete answer either way.
Jon Sandys ★
OK but I would like to note that not everyone who offers creative explanations has recently seen the movie; some people just invent their own. E.g. "followed by disaster" is not an actual explanation from the movie, it was just one of the suggestions made here and only here. Or the ones on my own question below. All I'm saying is, it's very hard to tell what the "rules" / "logic" of this place are supposed to be, so I understand what the OP was driving at.
Spiny Norman