Question: After the first photon torpedo hit from Chang, when the bridge is shaken and everyone flies from their seats - so do the bridge seats, like office chairs with wheels. Shouldn't bridge equipment be bolted down to the floor? (01:33:22)
TonyPH
14th Feb 2022
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
18th Sep 2023
Scream (1996)
Question: Randy says that the police would save time if they watched "Prom Night". I saw that movie a while ago, but I don't understand what he means. Can someone explain?
Answer: Did you watch the remake or the 1981 original? In that version, these mean kids terrorise a girl and cause her to fall out of a third-story window and die. They take a vow of secrecy and leave, then the shadow of a person appears before the dead girl. At the prom, a mysterious stalker taunts and kills the group of kids, one by one. The police, at first, believe a local child molester did it but died in a car crash. They reopen the case and arrive at the prom to see it was the younger brother of the murdered girl who discovered her body and sought revenge.
I watched the 1981 original, but as my question says, I had not seen it in a while. So, is Randy saying that the police should be investigating people who are directly connected to Sidney and her mother (Mr. Prescott, Billy, Sidney's friends)? Just as the killer in "Prom Night" was directly connected to a murder victim?
Sort of. Randy's mostly saying that the cops are wasting their time trying to track down the whereabouts of a missing suspect and that the killer is more likely to be hiding in plain sight among the victims' inner social circle.
11th Oct 2023
Scream (1996)
Question: Sharon Stone is mentioned a couple of times. Is it simply coincidence, or is there a joke behind it?
Answer: Apparently not coincidence. Sharon Stone starred in an early Wes Craven film called "Deadly Blessing". She is also a close friend of Craven's former wife, Mimi.
Answer: Probably a coincidence, Sharon Stone was a major star at the time. Years later, at a Q&A after a special screening of the film, writer Kevin Williamson remarked that he hadn't realized just how many Sharon Stone references were in the film, and they all stuck out to him while watching.
29th Dec 2019
The Omen (1976)
Question: Why didn't Damien's parents notice the 666 when he was an infant?
Answer: It's possible that the mark didn't appear until Mrs Baylock showed up and began teaching him about his heritage. The mark of the devil is said to appear only when Satan accepts a follower, and up until Mrs Baylock appears, Damien is a normal boy. Yes, he's the devil's son, but he knows nothing of his evil nature until she starts teaching him. In fact, at one point, Robert mentions that he knew every inch of Damien's body since he raised him and never saw anything, so more than likely the mark didn't appear until Damien had areas on his body where it could be hidden more easily.
But it's a birthmark. He had it when he was born.
26th Aug 2018
The Omen (1976)
Question: Something that puzzles me about the thee Omen films taken together. In the first film of the series the very young Damien is taken into a church. As the son of the Devil he has a great aversion to all things Christian, so he has a huge tantrum, and screams, struggles and resists going into the building. So how is it, that, as the series progresses, he can enter Christian buildings without any ill effects? (The denouement of the third and final Omen film is set in Fountains Abbey, a venerated Christian church in Yorkshire).
Answer: It may be similar to myths around vampires. In many variations, their fear of crucifixes is purely psychological. As a child, Damian may have feared the symbolism of the church, but as he grew he realised it had no actual power over him.
Answer: There's no clear-cut answer. The first film was intended as a stand-alone movie. When the later sequels were made, the plot details were changed or otherwise adapted to fit a new story line.
A quick addendum to this correction: There was indeed a general idea from the start that the Omen could spawn a trilogy of movies, though there weren't detailed plans, and the first film was written so that it could function fine as a stand-alone movie if they never got around to sequels.
21st Jul 2014
The Omen (1976)
Question: How could Damien's mother be a jackal? That has always thrown me for a loop and I could never understand why they'd do that unless it was for entertainment purposes. I mean, I know it's Hollywood and all but that's just too far-fetched.
Chosen answer: The idea wasn't entirely Hollywood's. The antichrist is sometimes said to be "born of a jackal. " Jackals are mentioned in the Bible, and some interpretations consider them a symbol of something that is "not of God." In the movie, it means that the kid was scary as hell, literally.
Answer: It's Satan's twisted and macabre mockery of Jesus' virgin mother.
20th Jul 2023
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: When Chewbacca tells Han that Luke is a Jedi Knight (or almost one), why does Han consider this a "delusion of grandeur"? He has known Luke for about four years now. Luke did some training with Obi-Wan in the Millennium Falcon, so Han knew what his goal was.
Answer: Han still believes the Force and Jedi are just fairy tales, magic. He doesn't really believe in them still.
Answer: The last time Han Solo had seen Luke was just after rescuing him from freezing to death after nearly getting eaten by an abominable snow creature. Having missed out on all the developments since then, Han still thinks of Luke as a plucky, immature kid. It'd be sort of like discovering someone you know of as an altar boy is now going around calling himself a bishop.
6th Jan 2018
The Exorcist (1973)
Question: What was the significance of the father being an absentee dad? Did that make Reagan more vulnerable to being possessed?
Answer: The demon wants everyone to lose hope for the girl and give up on her. Her father, having already flown the coop, just makes this goal that much easier.
Answer: It's possible it made her more vulnerable, but the mother, being a big movie star with an adolescent child would probably be divorced at this stage. It was more likely a literary choice by the author. Fewer characters make for a less complicated plot and eliminates the need to add an additional character who may not serve the story in a meaningful way.
18th May 2023
Scream VI (2023)
Question: The events of Scream VI take place around Halloween, but it doesn't specify what year. A news reporter said that the Woodsboro killings took place in 2022 as if they happened a year ago, and Scream VI was released in March of 2023. So, do the events of Scream VI take place on Halloween of 2022 or 7 months in the future after the film's release date?
Answer: I think this is more "trivia" than mistake. There's no error in a film taking place a bit further ahead in time than in its release date.
Answer: Using some conjecture, if the film states the last killings took place in 2022 and treats it like "last year," you can assume it takes place around Halloween 2023. Films are allowed to take place in the future. They don't have to be set around their release date. So how is this a mistake?
2nd Feb 2015
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Question: Why did Spielberg make Temple of Doom a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark? I read somewhere that he didn't want to make the Nazis the villains again, but that wouldn't be a problem since the Nazis never went to India or China.
Answer: This is conjecture, but it seems the general function of setting Temple of Doom before Raiders of the Lost Ark is that it helps set audience expectations that the two movies are self-contained episodes. For instance, Karen Allen has said she wasn't disappointed about not being asked to return because she'd already been told that the next installment was being set in the past before her character is reunited with Indy. Conversely, since we're already aware Raiders makes no mention of the events of Temple of Doom, we know we shouldn't necessarily expect any further installments to continue directly from prior movies' storylines regardless if they are set forward in time.
Chosen answer: It was actually George Lucas who wrote the story, made it a prequel, and has stated it was because he didn't want the Nazis to be the villains again. The idea most likely seems if it wasn't a prequel, the Nazis could still be after Jones, even in China or India. But alas, there is really no other insight as to Lucas' prequel decision.
8th Dec 2006
The Monster Squad (1987)
Question: Is it ever explained where to or even why the monsters are being moved?
15th May 2018
The Monster Squad (1987)
Question: How exactly were Dracula's servants successful in stopping Van Helsing in 1897? What did the monster hunters do wrong?
Answer: The girl finished the incantation and opened Limbo but it only took some of the hunters, the girl and Van Helsing; it didn't take Dracula so it was a failure of a mission.
Answer: They caused enough chaos and terror in the hunters that the girl couldn't focus on reading the incantation. Van Helsing was desperately trying to get her to hurry up and finish but she just couldn't get it done in time with everything going on around her. Apparently Van Helsing's group was not prepared for the undead bursting from the ground and frightening everyone.
29th May 2009
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: When Luke asked Leia if she remembers her real mother she said she does but she died when she was very young. Her mother died during child birth. How can Leia remember what her mother looked like?
Answer: Leia most likely knew she was adopted as she had no reaction to Luke asking about her "real mother." I believe the correct answer here is George Lucas hadn't planned on Leia's mother dying during childbirth when this scene was written and at that time Leia genuinely had faint memories of her real mother. This was later shown to be impossible when the prequels were made.
Answer: She is referring to Padme. I believe she actually replies 'not really' when asked what her mother looked like. Also, Leia was a senator at some point, like Padme. It is likely she would have seen a painting or senator entry.
She most likely didn't know Padme the senator was her mother, because that would mean Anakin/Darth Vader would therefore have the same knowledge. She most definitely knew she was adopted. The "not really, just feelings" (paraphrased) line was "ret-conned" to fit when the newborn twins were shown in Episode III. Luke's eyes were shut, while Leia's eyes were open-she "saw" her mother. Perhaps the Force gave her a more mature feeling/insight into her mother from the brief time between pregnancy and when she was spirited away to Alderaan and her adoptive family.
Chosen answer: The mother Leia refers to would be Queen Breha Organa of Alderaan. At this point, Leia has no idea that she was adopted.
Negative. Luke specifically says "your real mother." Nowhere is it said Leia didn't know she was adopted. It's also highly unlikely she didn't know, since her adoptive father was a high-profile governmental figure and no way would the press keep a tight lip on the Bail and his wife suddenly having a baby without any signs of pregnancy.
Bail Organa says "We've always wanted a daughter." It wouldn't make sense to tell the daughter they've adopted in order to hide her from Vader "Oh yeah, you're adopted but don't tell anybody because the Emperor would send Vader to hunt you down." Better to just let her think you're her real parents.
Just because Leia knows she's adopted doesn't mean she has any idea who exactly her birth mother was, aside from her apparent memories. The Organas may well have concocted a whole cover story about her birth parents for another layer of protection over her identity. In fact, the way both Luke and Leia casually use/accept the "real mother" term suggests that not only does Leia know she's adopted, it's actually fairly common knowledge.
Answer: The short answer is that we don't know and it's left a mystery for the viewer. But on the flip side the lack of concrete information does leave room for numerous possibilities: One is that Leia might simply be mistaken: she had dreams of an idealized mother figure that she mistook for memories. Another is that the Organas could've lied to Leia about who her birth mother was for her own protection, and she is recalling this decoy mother (I quite like the theory that they told Leia her birth mother was one of Padme's loyal bodyguards chosen for their resemblance to her). And of course there's always the possibility there's something supernatural going on: Leia is strong with the Force and doesn't know it, and Padme's fate was so inexplicable you could theorize she didn't even really "die" so much as her spirit simply left her body.
16th Nov 2010
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: Does anyone know why Han's line was changed in the Special Edition to "It's all right, I can see a lot better now" from "it's all right, trust me" right before he shoots the sarlacc to save Lando?
Answer: We can only speculate, but George Lucas has shown a penchant for making updates that super-clarify certain narrative logistics for viewers even if it's not strictly necessary. The new line explicitly establishes that Han Solo has regained his eyesight, whereas with the prior line the audience must infer this from his behavior here and in subsequent scenes (how much this was ever an issue for viewers in the first place is certainly debatable).
Answer: Harrison Ford improvised some lines so he could have improvised this one.
18th Jul 2022
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: It's stated by Vader in the previous film how much he wanted to capture Luke for the Emperor by using the carbonite freezer. Boba Fett knew this. So why didn't Boba Fett take Luke into his custody to take him back to Vader instead of letting Jabba kill him with the sarlac pit?
Answer: Boba did attempt to grapple Luke with his whipcord.
Answer: Luke was a Jedi Master. He knew taking him wouldn't easy. Bobo Fett went after thugs, aliens he knew would be easy to catch. Besides, the bounty he received would have made him wealthy, plus he stayed with Jabba, which means he was on his payroll.
Answer: Doing this would require Boba Fett to either convince Jabba to give Luke to him (not likely) or he'd have to steal Luke from him and ruin their business relationship. Also Boba Fett and Darth Vader never appeared particularly chummy with each other and Fett has personally witnessed Vader totally screw Lando over in their own deal, so from multiple angles any operation to take Luke in for himself and claim a reward from the Empire is likely more trouble than it's worth.
2nd Jun 2022
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Question: I remember seeing an extra scene where they discovered that the Klingon sniper was in fact a human, since he didn't have Klingon blood. Was this only for TV release, because that's the only place that I saw it?
Answer: In the original theatrical release, the character Colonel West, played by Rene Auberjonois (who played Odo in DS9), never appeared as his scenes were cut. The home release special edition version included these scenes, including where he is disguised as a Klingon in the assassination attempt.
Answer: That scene was included in all the VHS and DVD releases of the film up until 2009 when the Blu-ray (and possibly subsequent DVD reissues) stuck to the theatrical cut. It also might have been edited out of some TV airings due to the big pool of blood.
18th Feb 2022
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Question: I have always wondered why the entire senior bridge crew beam down to Khitomer at the end of the movie - (1) this crew is already senior - you would expect some junior crew members to come as support even in the series episodes, they always brought the "red shirts" to do at least some of the dirty work or act as security escorts; and (2) Who's left flying the ship?
Answer: The logical reason is that this is the final movie with the original cast. The plot is written so that they all have a heroic climatic moment, are shown to still share a strong united bond, and are all together before bidding Star Trek fans farewell. It was a fitting and satisfying ending to their long participation in the ST franchise. There would certainly be plenty of crew aboard the Enterprise to fly it.
They've uncovered an assassination conspiracy with one of their own senior officers is involved, and she enlisted the help of two jr. Crewman. The plan would be classified to bridge crew only in case there were more crew involved. As for the ship, if they're in standard orbit, the computers can maintain that with very few crew on the bridge.
Answer: To answer question #2: nobody! When we see the senior officers return to the bridge, it is completely deserted.
That doesn't mean there was no-one on the bridge while the senior crew were on the planet. They may just have exited the bridge prior to Kirk and the others stepping back on. Also, bridge control can be transferred to engineering and the ship flown from there while in orbit. I would emphasize again that the scene was written without other crew being seen solely to focus on the original cast members one final time. It's their moment, so a bit of artistic license was appropriate.
11th Jan 2005
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: Why couldn't the Emperor sense the presence of Luke Skywalker on Endor (per his conversation with Vader)?
Chosen answer: The Emperor did sense Luke. He just didn't tell Vader that, because he was planning on replacing Vader with Luke (kind of like replacing an old sedan with a new sportscar) and double crossing Vader.
Same thing what happened in Episode III, Palpatine deceived and betrayed Dooku by not knowing he was just a pawn to his plans.
Answer: You never know whether The Emperor is telling the truth or not, but either way what he's trying to convey to Vader here is that he's starting to get the tiniest bit of doubt over whether Vader has truly purged all compassion towards his son, and if not he'd better nip that in the bud, pronto.
14th Oct 2021
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: Why did Palpatine ever want an apprentice? If I am correct, he always intended to dispose of Darth Maul, Count Dooku, and Darth Vader when they were no longer useful to him. And probably Luke, if Luke had accepted his offer. Why not work alone?
Answer: Because an Apprentice does the emperor's bidding, dispatches orders, acts as an emissary, intimidates enemies, is a spy, and so on. Having minions at one's disposal is a show of power, and supreme leaders would not do those things themselves. It dilutes their authority, and they would look weak and ineffective. As you pointed out, when the current apprentice is no longer as useful or obedient or becomes too powerful and poses a threat, they are replaced.
That's the rule of two for the Sith, there's always a Master and an Apprentice. No more, no less. In order to remain a Sith Master, Sidious must have an apprentice.
Answer: Succumbing to the dark side comes with it a megalomania that has you wanting to display proof of your omnipotence by training a skilled and powerful apprentice who starts out THINKING he's going to kill you and take your place someday but in the end is forever your obedient slave (or so you think.) Likewise, Sith apprentices all have an unspoken desire to eventually pull the ultimate power move by killing their master and taking their place as head honcho when they least expect it (or so they think). This of course results in Sith relationships always becoming weird and twisted, vaguely BDSM-like mind games.
24th Apr 2004
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: This is something that covers the whole of the Star Wars films, but is most noticeable on this film. There is life on Endor, which means there is an atmosphere. Why then, do none of the spaceships entering this atmosphere show any signs of heating as they pass through it?
Answer: It's most likely to do with the fact that the ships in the films enter the atmosphere in a highly controlled manner, unlike our ships, which, to all intents and purposes, simply fall through the atmosphere, using atmospheric friction to slow themselves down, causing the intense heat buildup - Star Wars ships don't need to do that. The other factor is that the majority of ships in the Star Wars universe have shields of one sort or another - these may have some effect in dispersing any possible heat buildup.
Answer: I don't think we ever see a ship in the actual moment it penetrates a planet's atmosphere, it's always shortly before or after.
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: Sure, but it's a lot more fun to see them sliding around.
TonyPH