Stupidity: Early in the film, Peter Parker desperately wants to see Mary Jane's performance, but he is turned away at the theatre doors because he is a few minutes late. Defeated, Peter shuffles away and sulks. Seriously? Why couldn't Peter simply enter the theatre through a side door or the roof? He's Spider Man.
BaconIsMyBFF
6th Apr 2017
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's two things to consider here. First, a major theme of the film is Peter struggling with keeping his Spider-Man and Peter Parker lives separate. Peter makes every attempt to get to the show on his own, as Peter by riding on his scooter. Simply breaking into the theater after he has been turned away would ruin the idea that keeping his two lives separate is a struggle. It would instead imply the opposite, that Peter can simply use his powers to solve his problems whenever it's convenient. Secondly, the usher makes it clear that no-one is to be admitted after the show has started as this would disturb the guests and possibly the performers as well. Sneaking into the theater could very well ruin the performance and Peter obviously wouldn't want that.
If there's one thing we know about Spider-Man, it's that he is incredibly stealthy, often coming and going without any detection whatsoever. He could have easily accessed the building and watched the show from a secluded vantage and even met Mary Jane backstage afterwards. Certainly in this case, using his powers would be justified, given that it was more important for Mary Jane to know Peter attended the show, rather than simply giving up.
He doesn't want to do any of that, though. He wants to go to the show as Peter, with a ticket, sit in a seat with the rest of the people, enjoy the show, and see Mary Jane afterwards. He stops the car chase as Spider-Man after his scooter is wrecked and instead of web-swinging to the theater, which would have been much faster, he chooses to change back into his regular clothes and drive the criminal's car. Sure, he certainly could have used his powers to get into the theater but the point is he doesn't want to. The fact that he chooses not to use his powers and instead deal with the consequences of hurting Mary Jane's feelings is the entire point.
And besides he'd probably get kicked out of the theater if he was caught.
20th Feb 2018
Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Plot hole: The idea that Marlow would simply take a taxi to his wife's address after being missing in action for thirty odd years is stupid beyond belief. He was on a ship sailing from the central Pacific for days and those ships have radios! The US military would have known he was coming. Someone, somewhere would have notified the authorities that a US serviceman long thought dead was actually alive and on his way home and his wife and son would have been there on the docks to greet him, not standing slack-jawed in the kitchen dropping trays of drinks on the floor when he turned up! What would have happened if she had remarried? Or moved house? Or she was dead? Don't tell me the US military didn't know he was coming - he is wearing a brand new uniform, clean and pressed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The implication is that Marlow went through an extensive debrief and nobody had contacted his family until the debrief had concluded, based on the top secret nature of the mission. As you say, the fact he has a brand new uniform suggests that he has contacted the US Military prior to ever contacting his family. The fact that his wife would have moved and re-married is irrelevant, he still would have made an attempt to contact her so he could see his son.
And they wouldn't have contacted her after the debrief had been completed? What utter nonsense. Allowing him to just turn up on the doorstep without notifying his wife first is an utterly irresponsible and even dangerous act. She could have fainted with shock or even had a heart attack. She would absolutely, definitely, 100% carved in stone, been advised of her husband's survival and return.
Since we know very little about the completely fictional organization Monarch, we obviously cannot say they would "carved in stone" do anything. In order to be a mistake in the movie, it would have to be something that is impossible. A secret government organization that doesn't even exist in real life not behaving the way the real military would is not impossible. At least not by the rules set forth in the film. It's perhaps improbable but it is most certainly not impossible.
It is an inviolable, carved in stone, fur lined, ocean going, top of the list rule that the next of kin are immediately advised of the change of status of military personnel. MIA, now confirmed dead? They'd be the first to know. MIA, now confirmed to be alive, same outcome. His wife would know he was on that ship coming home.
This is true in real life but in the fictional world of the movie Monarch is a secret, government agency that has some degree of control over the military. You can't apply the same rules as in real life in this situation.
13th Jun 2007
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Plot hole: The only reason the terrorists' plot can work is that the airports around Dulles are all closed to landings because of the violent snowstorm. If there were no storm, the pilots of the airliners in the holding pattern would simply divert to nearby airports when they started running low on fuel. If they were able to do that, the whole plot would simply fall apart. How were the terrorists able to count on the storm happening on the very day General Esperanza's flight was due to land? They didn't have any influence over the date of his flight. How did they know the storm would be so bad that all airports would be closed - except Dulles? I don't think they had any way of predicting the weather quite that accurately, and If the storm hadn't hit or had been even slightly less severe the pilots of the stranded airliners could easily have diverted to any one of half a dozen alternate landing sites, including a nearby Air Force base. They could do this without consulting or even contacting air traffic control. The whole plot falls apart from there - no hostages, no leverage, and who cares what happens to the people on Esperanza's plane? They'd have it shot down as soon as they knew Esperanza had killed the pilot and taken over the flight.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The terrorists in the film planned extensively for this operation, but the storm occurring may have just been a coincidence for them. They may also have had the plan waiting for a perfect opportunity, like a snowstorm. In the beginning of the movie, there's a news story on while the Colonel is exercising nude. The story says Esperanza's extradition has been long and drawn out, until a phone call from..." and he cuts the TV off. Given his connections, Colonel Stewart may well have been able to arrange a State Department call the week of a predicted snow storm. Esperanza's adherents may also have been able. Another scenario they may have had is to take the Air Traffic Controllers hostage (as they did) and have the other aircraft diverted for a supposed emergency, but the snowstorm worked out. Whatever the case, that element of the plot is an interesting discussion, not a mistake.
If the storm hadn't hit the pilots of the stranded airliners could easily have diverted to any one of half a dozen alternates, including a nearby Air Force base. They could do this without consulting or even contacting air traffic control. The whole plot falls apart from there - no hostages, no leverage, and who cares what happens to the people on the Esperanza's plane? They'd have it shot down.
That bothered me too when I first saw this in theatres. The chances of it snowing in D.C. on any particular day are pretty low, and the plan falls apart without it. The only way to 'fix' this is to assume that when the film was originally written, it was set in New York City. This makes more sense thematically...with the original set in Los Angeles. But at some point, probably late in the production, they changed it to D.C. for some reason, and made it fit as best they could.
The snowstorm was not part of the plan. Early on when the group of terrorists is sitting around the table about to exchange the package, Cochran is listening to a weather report and states that a huge storm is approaching, which makes the other men smile and one of them responds "God loves the infantry." The terrorists could still crash planes without the snow storm because they could impersonate the tower. The planes that are circling overhead are the planes that didn't have enough fuel to be diverted to another airport and that has nothing to do with a snow storm. The blizzard was simply fortuitous for the terrorists.
The airliners we see could easily glide to any one of seven nearby airports from the airspace over Dulles, let alone fly there when fuel began running low.
That is a separate issue (and is indeed a mistake in the film) that doesn't really have anything to do with the blizzard. This film acts as if Baltimore Washington International or Richmond International Airport don't exist.
And since they do, it is both a plot hole and a factual error. If they had called their fictional airport Springfield International, fine, but they didn't. They identified it as Dulles International which is within easy flying - or gliding - time to half a dozen other airports.
This is possible that other airports were closed due to bad weather.
Which necessitates the terrorists knowing that! They had to know the storm was coming for their plan to work. The stranded airlines could easily have diverted to an alternative even if that meant gliding, and they could do so without consulting air traffic control.
The terrorist obviously knew that. They are very arrogant and planned everything very accurately. They knew that other airports are closed because of the bad weather.
The airports were closed AFTER Esperanza's flight took off. The storm is an essential part of the terrorist's plans. Storms like the one we see can can diminish very rapidly or veer away from their original course (I have seen both happen) and cannot, ever, be counted on to the meticulous extent the terrorists do.
25th May 2018
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Question: Why do those charms disappear at the end? Does Ren use the force to destroy them?
Answer: Luke took them from the Millennium Falcon and gave them to Leia. He wasn't actually there, and was instead a force-projection. When he died and his projection disappeared, so did the illusion of the dice that he had brought with him.
Luke disappears well before the charm. Also, the charm had a physical presence (I.E. you could pick them up) whereas Luke did not.
Luke didn't disappear "well before" the charm. The scene of his death plays out first for the audience but his disappearance and the disappearance of the dice were supposed to be concurrent. It's also not entirely true that Luke didn't have a physical presence. He holds Leia's head and kisses her physically. Presumably he could choose what was physical and what was not and chose to not have a physical presence when he dueled Kylo Ren. This is further evidenced throughout the film when Kylo Ren's hand gets wet from the rain after "force Skyping" with Rey and later on when the two are able to physically touch.
23rd Aug 2018
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Question: Why did the writers decide to have Snoke killed just like that? Fans have spent the last two years wondering about so many theories about who he is, so was it really wise to kill him that early on without even the slightest hint as to who he really is?
Answer: According to reports, JJ Abrams had different ideas for each characters' story arcs while he was directing "The Force Awakens"; when Rian Johnson signed on as director for "Last Jedi", he basically decided to ignore Abrams' ideas and create his own direction for every major character, including Snoke. Since there is still one more film left in the current trilogy, though, we may learn more about Snoke's true nature in Episode IX; the possibility also exists that he may return as a Force ghost or in a cloned body, at least according to fan theories.
Answer: I know this caused quite the uproar with a lot of the fans, but looking back at the original trilogy, how much information was known about Emperor Palpatine when he was killed off? None of this was addressed until the prequel trilogy many years later.
Exactly. I have made this same argument so many times. Back when the original trilogy came out, none of us were running around complaining that we never found out the Emperor's backstory.
I was merely asking why they decided to kill off Snoke this early.
To be more to the point of your question, it seems that Rian Johnson believed (in my opinion, correctly) that the Snoke character added very little to the story and his death would be shocking to the audience. As a virtual copy of Palpatine in almost every way, the audience expected Snoke to fill a similar role in this story and last well into the third film. By killing Snoke so early, you get rid of a pretty useless character and also shock your audience, leaving them with no idea what direction the story will take going forward.
5th Oct 2018
Aliens (1986)
Question: How did all the colonists get relocated to where the queen is? Do the aliens paralyze them when interacting with them? I can't imagine Hudson going there to be cocooned without struggling.
Answer: In the original script, yes the aliens have a barb at the end of their tails which is used to sting their prey and paralyze them. This was deemed unnecessary, however and the idea was dropped. We are shown an alien grabbing Dietrich and carrying her away and they do indeed just seem to strong-arm their victims and carry them, kicking and screaming the whole way. Bear in mind that a xenomorph is considerably stronger than an average human. It doesn't appear to be any more difficult for them to carry an unwilling human than it would be for a parent carrying a toddler throwing a tantrum.
Could be even more than that, they could concuss their captives or release some sort of odour that causes sleepiness. Could be anything. The captives always wake up cocooned before being impregnated so they are anesthetized at some point. We know the facehuggers anesthetize their victims, so the fully grown xenomorphs must have still have the same chemical compound as well.
The comic books and novels go into great detail regarding the chemical the facehuggers use to put people to sleep. It has a name and everything. This chemical is what causes some people to have nightmares while they are subdued. Curiously, I've never noticed them saying the adult xenomorph also uses the chemical but like you say, it stands to reason that they do. Why the movies and novels etc. ignore this element entirely is anyone's guess. It seems like an interesting element that has been consistently left out and, like you also say, people just seem to "wake up" after being cocooned but before they are impregnated so obviously they were put to sleep at some point.
7th Sep 2017
Gravity (2013)
Question: Are Bullock's reactions to all the situations she encounters logical, considering she is a trained astronaut? For instance: she repeatedly noticed that she is running out of oxygen, but she still keeps talking, screaming and hyperventilating. The first thing you have to do is to get your breath under control, but she keep talking and screaming all the way... Would a person like Bullock get through all the NASA psychological tests?
Answer: Dr. Stone isn't an experienced astronaut. She is on her 1st mission, a mission that is continually disastrous and claims the lives of two people. Her panic, even considering her training, is more than justified.
"Her panic even considering her training is more than justified" I wouldn't be so sure about that. Jack Swegiert, and Fred Haise were not experienced astronauts either during the Apollo 13 accident, but they managed to remain calm, and not panic given the psychological tests they went through.
That's true but nobody died during Apollo 13, communication with Houston was not severed, the astronauts were not alone, etc. It's a different situation. Given the circumstances of her specific mission, primarily the fact two men died on the mission and she was left alone with no help, her panic does not seem to me to be unrealistic.
Answer: While she is a specialist who was cleared to be on the mission, she noted that she received only 6 months of prior minimal training and was mediocre-she noted crashing the simulations, getting sick during training, etc. not to mention having past trauma involving her daughter. Their allowing her to proceed was more about opening space to civilians and possibly for public relations purposes than about her being an astronaut.
13th Nov 2018
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: Is there anything to suggest that someone couldn't leave the grail in the cave and come back every 50 years or so to "top off" their immortality?
Answer: It doesn't appear to work that way. The power of the grail heals Henry's gunshot wound instantly and it keeps the knight looking about 80 years old. However, there is nothing in the film to suggest that simply drinking from the grail and leaving the cave actually extends your life. In fact, Henry drank from the grail and died a natural death a relatively short time later in between this film and the next.
Actually it is stated that Henry Jones Sr. died either in 1951 or 1956. So either at the age of 79 or 85 and at least 13 years after the events of the Last Crusade movie. Whilst this is not an extremely old age, there is no reason to think his life wasn't extended by the grail. Indiana himself got to a high age himself, having drunk from the grail.
I don't think the series is implying that either Jones man lived a long life due to the grail. In fact it would seem to go against the irony of the grail as presented: that it does give you eternal life but you are confined to that cave to enjoy the benefits. Maybe if they had said Henry Jones died at the age of 120 or something out of the ordinary, but they specifically state he dies at a perfectly normal, non magical age.
Well it's never stated that it gives eternal life only to the person staying in the cave either. That's what the question is about. If the healing properties of the grail work on someone who leaves the cave, there is no reason to think their life isn't extended (technically it already was in the case of Henry Jones Sr.) as well. It is possible though, since the knight looked pretty old, that the grail only heals, and that healing extends life but one has to drink from the cup frequently (like every day) in order to stay alive, whilst still getting older.
The knight does say that the grail cannot leave the seal, which is the price of immortality. He is implying that in order to reap the benefits of eternal life you must stay in the cave. The way it seems to work is that in order to extend your life in any meaningful way, you must drink from the grail often. Just leaving and coming back whenever you need a jolt would effectively make the rule about not taking the grail out of the cave meaningless. How often you need to drink is of course not specified. In order for the film's ironic message about the grail to make any kind of sense, you would need to drink from the grail so often you would effectively be stuck in the cave. Possibly drinking from it every day. In which case, like the knight you would just live at the cave and never leave. The knight's brothers both left 150 years after finding the grail, but one of them died shortly after leaving, never making it out of the desert. So with regards to the original question: "can you just come back every 50 years or so?"; it would make the most sense based on what we see in the movie, what we know about how long Henry Jones Sr. Lived, what we know about the knights and how long they lived, and the message the movie is saying about the irony of the grail that the answer to that particular question is "No."
I wonder if someone were to bring a large storage vessel to the cave, and fill it using the Grail, if they could then take that water with them and drink it later... Man, the scientist in me really wants to resolve this.
Drinking from the grail is not the same as pouring water out of it into another vessel. Drinking from the grail is symbolic and there is no real power that it bestows upon the water in it. However, if the grail was able to pass the properties to another vessel, one would have to assume the temple would collapse on itself when attempting to take the secondary vessel out.
Answer: It's stated by the ancient knight that the Grail's powers do not extend into the outside world. He himself was immortal only because he remained at the site, drinking the water, for hundreds of years. Henry Senior was instantly healed on-site, but he and Indy continued to age normally once they left the site.
Then why didn't Henry's wound return when he left? Their healing extended their lives. It got rid of any bad cells, to go scientific.
Because cell deterioration due to aging happens spontaneously, i.e. you've got to keep removing the bad cells. Bullet wounds are not spontaneous...once it's gone, it's gone.
Why would his wound return? He was instantly healed. From that point forward he was in normal health, even after crossing the seal. Indy actually drank from the Grail, which meant he was immortal for a few minutes, but his immortality did not follow him beyond the seal.
It's the difference between believing the power of immortality comes from the cup or staying in the cave. The knight was immortal because he kept drinking from the cup, not because he stayed in the cave. The cup has healing powers, and simply growing old is not the reason for death, regenerating cells will keep you alive, so if the cup regenerates cells, you are immortal from drinking from it, as long as you do it regularly. That's how the knight has done it and why he looks old and is frail. Going outside doesn't negate the powers of the cup, or Henry's wound would have returned. Therefor, going back often to drink from the cup will extend your life. It will cure you from any ailments that accompany old age like heart disease, cancer and brain degeneration.
The Grail Knight plainly says: "You have chosen...wisely. But, beware: the Grail cannot pass beyond the Great Seal, for that is the boundary, and the price, of immortality." Therefore, you remain immortal as long as you don't cross the seal. If you are healed instantly inside the boundary of the Great Seal, then you are healed. Period. It's not just a magic bandaid that disappears if you cross the seal.
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.
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?
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."
8th Oct 2018
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Question: Why would Flash Thompson of all people attend Harry's funeral? He bullied Peter and Harry in the first movie.
Answer: It had been a few years since they were in high school. Perhaps Flash had matured since then and realised his behaviour towards them was wrong, so he came to pay his respects.
This is true to the comics. Eventually Flash matures and becomes close friends with both Peter and Harry.
19th Jan 2009
The Dark Knight (2008)
Question: When the Joker is giving his speech to the people on the ferries, there is a shot of him in the Pruitt building. The camera is behind him and in the reflection on the glass you can see him reading his speech from a piece of paper. Why is he doing this? Is it to make sure he remembers his own plan? Or is there something else going on?
Answer: He's got a big speech to make - seems reasonable that he might have made some notes so that he didn't forget anything. Most people do that under such circumstances. There certainly aren't any indications in the film that it was anything else - while it might be a mistake, it fits the scene well enough that there's no way to tell either way.
His voice also definitely sounds like he is reading, in this scene and also when he calls into the talk show to threaten Coleman Reese. It does not sound like "off the cuff" dialogue. Apparently the Joker writes speeches like this down and reads directly from his notes.
3rd Sep 2010
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: Towards the end, before the confrontation with Kimble and Nicholls, the guy who was tracing Kimble's phone records tells the Marshalls that Kimble telephoned Sykes on the night of his wife's murder. But obviously it wasn't Kimble calling Sykes, it was Sykes using Kimble's phone. But why would Sykes be calling himself?
Chosen answer: He didn't. A key plot point is that Nichols borrowed Kimble's car on the night of the murder. The call to Sykes, which is expressly stated by the marshals as being on Kimble's car phone, was from Nichols, presumably arranging to meet so that he could give Sykes Kimble's keys to get into his house to lie in wait for him.
Thank you for explaining it. I've seen it several times and never realised how it went down.
And Tommy Lee Jones tells Kimble that they knew Nichols called Skyes from his car, but how? Wouldn't the more logical answer have been that the US Marshals thought that Kimble called Sykes from his car to tell the killer his wife was home alone? There is no way the US Marshalls would have known that the Kimble let Nichols borrow his call - that's the mistake in the movie! It actually should have made the Marshalls suspicious of Kimble, not exonerate him.
The Marshals know Kimble let Nichols borrow his car because Kimble told the police when he was initially interviewed following the murder. He gave a detailed account of his actions and whereabouts that night and mentioned that Nichols had borrowed his car. It didn't seem suspicious to the police at the time because Richard claimed he fought with a one armed man he didn't recognize; a story the police did not believe because there was no evidence of this and Kimble's wife "identified" her attacker as Richard. Gerard puts everything together when he realises that Nichols lied about knowing Lentz.
How did Sam figure out that Nichols borrowed the vehicle and made the call to Sykes and gave him keys, etc? I know in the laundry he reveals that he knew this but when/how did he figure it out?
Answer: This is more of a question really. What kind of defense attorney did this high dollar, Dr. Kimble hire who do not show their defendant pictures of the one-armed men the police question? How do his attorneys not ask him "OK, which of these one-armed men did you fight with in your house?"
The prosecution is not required to inform the defense of every person the police interview or question. They are only required to give the defense whatever evidence they have against the accused. Simply questioning someone in a perceived dead only counts as evidence against the accused if the prosecutor mentions it in court. If the prosecutor were to say "We interviewed a one-armed man named Sykes and he says he doesn't know you", then Kimble's defense would be required to be given access to Sykes. We can assume this never happened.
The Chicago police DID question Sykes after the Kimble murder. Review the scene where Sykes returns to his apartment after Kimble has been there. Girard starts asking Sykes questions, at first Sykes says he doesn't know anything about Kimble but then "remembers" that he had been interviewed by the police right after the Kimble murder. However, Sykes says that he gave the police an alibi, with 15 people supposedly confirming that Sykes was on a business trip and not in Chicago. The movie then implies that Sykes had been a Chicago cop and lost his arm "in the line of duty." Remember that the Chicago police focused on Kimble pretty quickly. Their investigators may have interviewed Sykes, but they likely didn't even come close to considering him as a potential murderer. Even with Sykes likely matching Kimble's description of the one-armed man, the police likely saw Sykes as a former cop... A former cop who had an alibi confirmed by 15 people. As I understand it, prosecutors don't have to tell defense attorneys about everyone that the cops question. They only have to tell the defense about potential witnesses that might be called in connection to the criminal trial. In this scenario, Sykes wouldn't have been part of the criminal trial (Again, supposedly on a business trip confirmed by 15 people on the night of the murder) and thus Kimble and his lawyers would never have known about his existence.
12th May 2017
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: Why do the tripods make a horn sound?
Answer: Adding a horrifying sound is also intimidating to the people they're attacking.
Answer: It is a signal to the other tripods. They coordinate their attack with the signals. For instance, a specific horn sound is heard when a tripod discovers a group of humans and other tripods come to assist.
But if it is the case, there would probably be a more efficient way to communicate. They can travel through the lightning but they can't use a walkie talkie.
We know virtually nothing about the aliens or their culture. Using the horns in this manner could be ceremonial. It's also a misconception that a society more advanced than ours must have mastered everything our society has mastered. Just because they built death machines millions of years ago doesn't necessarily mean they ever developed a walkie talkie. The Martians seem to be perplexed by the wheel. The scene with the wheel also occurs in the source novel, wherein the narrator theorizes Martians never invented the wheel, "skipping over" this crucial milestone in human advancement.
In addition, it can be used as a way to intimidate the populace of Earth, to try and make them panic into poor decisions.
I mean, from a cinematic standpoint it definitely darkens the mood even more. A walke talkie wouldn't hold the wow factor as a loud sinister horn sound did.
Each tripod seemed fully capable of destroying anything (and enough) around it. Your idea is as good as any, but it seemed like the tripods just came out wherever they were buried and did their own thing without assistance. Besides, didn't a lot emerge from the water?
Answer: The sound of the said to be *horn* could be a way of asking for assistance or giving off their location to other tripods.
Answer: I thought it happened when the tripods flushed waste. Kind of like grunting is to humans.
Answer: I "thought" (guessed) it was to blow out any dust/debris that may have accumulated while underground and/or "fire up" (energize) their weapons before shooting.
10th Sep 2018
Jurassic Park (1993)
Question: How does the T Rex get to the visitors center at the end of the movie after Ellie turns the power back on?
Answer: After Nedry turns the power off to the fences, the T-Rex is free to leave its paddock. Even though some fences remained on during Nedry's absence, they were all turned off accidentally when the system was rebooted. At this point the T-Rex could have gone literally anywhere it wanted. By the time Ellie turns all the fences back on, the T-Rex is already roaming around the area that houses the visitor center.
When Tim gets zapped, it was Ellie turning on the perimeter fence, if I am not mistaken.Then we hear the T. Rex roar inside the perimeter fence. Is the visitor center inside the perimeter fence? Otherwise how did the T. Rex get through? Did she already knock holes in the fence possibly?
The implication is that the T. Rex is already in the area. Whether she got there by a hole created earlier or just before the fence is turned back on is not clear. The fencing that Tim is shocked by is the main perimeter fence. The visitor center is located on the west coast of the island and is separated from the actual park by the giant wooden gate and perimeter fencing. For a map, visit here: http://jurassicpark.wikia.com/wiki/Park_Map.
Answer: There were several minutes before the electrical fence turned on. Between the fence perimeter sounding and Laura Dern flipping the switch, the T-Rex could have gone through.
25th Jun 2018
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Since the Jedi already knew that Count Dooku is a Sith Lord, did the Jedi ever find out that he is also Darth Tyranus?
Answer: Unlikely as Obi-Wan knew from Jango Fett that he was recruited by a man named Tyranus and with that information they could have known the clone army was ordered by the sith. Its possible after the betrayal that Yoda and Obi-Wan figured it out, but by then it was not much use.
It is eventually revealed in the Clone Wars series to Kenobi and Skywalker that Tyranus and Dooku are one and the same. Prior to this, the Jedi had no idea who Tyranus was.
But like I said that would mean they knew the clone army was connected to the sith.
It most certainly should. That Kenobi never connects the dots is an astounding oversight. I've always felt like it was a writing mistake to have Jango Fett reveal the name Tyranus to Kenobi, as it makes the Jedi, and Kenobi especially, seem incredibly stupid for not putting everything together. The fact that the Clone Wars series makes it clear that Kenobi knows exactly who Tyranus is but the Jedi still trust the clones afterwards is insane. It would have made much more sense to keep the identity of Tyranus a secret to the Jedi.
Yep, the Clone Wars series tends to do that a lot.
Then why did Obi Wan didn't do anything? Like telling the Jedi order that the Clone army is is a part of the Sith Plan.
I think that's a mistake in the clone wars series, which was made after Episode III was released. In the movies they didn't know.
Good point. But I wonder if the Jedi ever wondered about Dooku's Sith name.
Hm I see what you mean. Maybe they didn't think he had one? I think Dooku preferred his real name over his moniker. Since he had power with his name, he still called himself Dooku. Also, his identity as a Sith was a secret for a long time, but even as he was revealed as a Sith he still introduced himself as Dooku.
Among the three apprentices of Darth Sidious, Tyranus is the one who ressembles Palpatine the most. They're both mature, noble, political leader who has a secret sith agenda.Both of them hide their Sith Identity.
16th Sep 2017
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Question: How did Sauron take the form of a fiery eye? Isn't he powerless without the ring?
Answer: Most of Sauron's power was poured into the One Ring, but not all of it. Sauron cannot take a true physical form until the ring is returned to him but he can still use his power to form the eye to keep watch over Middle Earth.
Is the eye actually his true form?
If by "true form" you mean the form he originally took when he was created, it is unlikely. Sauron was a good, just, and respected being prior to being corrupted and likely wouldn't have such an evil appearance in his original form. It is important to note, however that the Eye of Sauron takes on a much more physical form in Peter Jackson's film that it does in the books. In the books, the eye is a red light hovering over the tower that has the vague appearance of an eye. The films makes the eye look like an actual, literal eyeball that moves and seems to have a personality.
I meant has the eye been his true form ever since he lost the ring?
Sort of, yes. Sauron's spirit existed in a non-corporeal form and eventually built enough strength to form the eye.
No, his true form is seen at the beginning of the film.
6th Jun 2018
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: When Anakin reports to Mace Windu that Palpatine is a Sith Lord, Why didn't Windu consult Yoda and the other Jedi such as Obi-Wan before facing Palpatine? It would've been a backup or reinforcements kind of thing.
Answer: Yoda was on Kashyyyk helping the Wookies and Obi-Wan was on Utapau engaging General Grievous. Mace Windu did bring three other jedi with him, he thought he had enough backup. Obviously he misjudged but the Jedi were spread thin throughout the galaxy and Windu had limited choices.
This is true. You could even argue that he didn't misjudge Anakin, he told Anakin to stay behind knowing his feelings would be conflicted but Anakin disobeyed.
Well he knew there was conflict inside Anakin but he misjudged the level of conflict, or the fact Anakin was basically already a Sith.This new information meant too much for Windu in such a short time, his duty got in the way, he felt it absolutely necessary to do it quickly. If only he had waited and taken his time to connect the dots. So many dots.
The idea that Sidious was beaten by Windu is up for debate. Sidious needed Anakin to do something big to fully succumb to the dark side. He knew Anakin was coming and in my opinion, was acting defeated to force Anakin to choose. Mace was naive and arrogant and assumed Sidious was beaten, when in reality, it was a show.
Windu is supposed to be the best lightsaber duellist around, even better than Yoda. I don't believe for a second Sidious was allowing Windu to beat him. Anakin showing up was his gamble, if he hadn't then Sidious would be dead.
Sidious would have sensed the conflict in Anakin and knew that the temptation would force him (no pun intended) to go and intervene.
I think it's worth mentioning that almost everyone on the Jedi Council and most of the Jedi masters were on the front lines when Mace Windu confronts Palpatine, so Kit Fisto and co. were probably the only help he could get? Palpatine may have even orchestrated events so most of the strongest Jedi were away from Coruscant in the first place (so they could more easily be dispatched by Order 66).
The entire war was Palpatine's way of spreading the Jedi thin.
Answer: Possibly the Jedi have the dark side of the force clouding their judgements.
7th Sep 2017
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: Why can't Dooku sense Obi-Wan on Geonosis? In ANH, Vader could sense Obi-Wan on the Death Star.
Chosen answer: For one thing Vader is significantly more powerful than Dooku. Vader also has a strong emotional connection with Obi Wan and thus it is easier to sense him.
How come? Tyranus, Obi Wan and Vader are all force sensitive. So we could expect Dooku might have sensed Kenobi.
There's nothing in the film to suggest he did. In A New Hope, Vader specifically mentions sensing Obi Wan. In Return of the Jedi, Luke specifically mentions sensing Vader. There is no mention that either Obi Wan or Dooku could sense the other on Geonosis. Dooku being able to sense Obi Wan would go a long way to explain the hilarious ease of Obi Wan's capture, but it can't be said that he could sense him just because he can use the force and force users can do that. We aren't shown it and he doesn't mention it.
Maybe Dooku sensed Obi Wan. But, I think it's part of the plan to get Kenobi captured. Because Dooku is going to reveal a "dark secret" to the Jedi.
Answer: Dooku knew that Obi Wan was spying him. But he did that on purpose, by luring him into a trap. As you can see in the film, he was captured so that Dooku would plant a seed with the Republic in order to ensure the Clone Wars began as Sidious and Tyranus planned.
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.