Question: What happened to Paul? If he was killed, why not Ginny as well?
TonyPH
8th Jan 2021
Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)
Answer: It's evident that more must have happened after the fade to white as we last see Jason grabbing Ginny, and then later she is found by authorities while Paul is not. One likely possibility is that Paul had intervened and succeeded in freeing Ginny from Jason, but in doing so became a victim himself.
3rd Sep 2004
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Does anybody know why in fact there is a large monster swimming around in the death star's trash compactor? Makes the scene more exciting, yes, but its existence on the space station just seems out of place.
Answer: The creature, a dianoga, stowed into the trash compactor and built a lair as it was being built and installed on the Death Star. Dianogas love habitats like swamps or sewers and are found to commonly inhabit such places.
The main question is why was it on a space station? I can't imagine that there have been other people thrown in the trash compactor so why would it be there.
It would not surprise me at all if someone had written an entire book explaining how the creature got there.
12th Sep 2007
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Question: This might be subjective, but why does the Enterprise take so much damage, especially interior damage, long before the shields actually collapse?
Chosen answer: There's a limit as to how much the shields can protect the ship. Depending on the force of the explosions, the ship still suffers some damage from any weapon blasts. Also, the shield only holds for so long and gradually loses it protectiveness with successive attacks, causing increasing damage to the ship.
Answer: The depiction of the shields in this movie is actually interesting because it seems they deliberately tried to show how the ship could plausibly take damage while the shields are up. Here the shields seem to be "on" the hull (or perhaps emanate from the hull itself) and their function seems specific to preventing hull breaches. In TNG and onwards the shields appear as a kind of energy bubble wrapped around the ship, and accordingly they seem to absorb much more impact.
21st Sep 2005
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Question: Is it my imagination, or does the opening theme sound similar to the classical piece "The Planets - Mars" by Holst?
Chosen answer: There are certain similarities, yes. Whether any specific aspects of the piece were deliberately incorporated into the film's opening theme is an open question, but the overall feel is undoubtedly very similar.
Answer: At one point Nicholas Meyer did indeed have the idea to incorporate "The Planets" into the score, but apparently the rights proved too expensive. I have no doubt Meyer asked composer Cliff Eidelmann to give the score a similar sound.
30th Apr 2005
Aliens (1986)
Question: I'm almost certain that the first time I ever saw this film on video (I never did see it during its theatrical release) there was no mention or use of the remote mini-guns that the Marines placed outside their "sanctuary", but I've since seen those guns in action. Does anyone know if there are several cuts of the video version in circulation within North America (Canada specifically), or import versions that would be different?
Answer: In the original theatrical release, the sentry guns are mentioned in passing when Hicks inventories the weapons that survived the crash of the first dropship. This reference was deleted in the original VHS release. When the movie was first brodcast on network television, the sentry gun scenes were added (as well as some other scenes including one near the beginning involving Ripley mourning the death of her daughter). As far as I know, up until the Special Edition DVD release which also includes those scenes, that was the only version which contained the sentry gun scenes and the network (I think it was ABC) would brocast this altered version from time to time.
Answer: The Special Edition was first released on video in 1991. While there have been times the Special Edition was the one most commonly available, it's definitely possible to have seen the theatrical cut on video first.
24th Nov 2019
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Has there ever been any sort of canonical discussion about the morality of droid treatment in any Star Wars titles? They're intelligent/sentient, are treated well by most people, even like friends/pets by some. And yet they also seem to casually get their minds wiped, or if they're destroyed many people shrug rather than mourn. Tools to some, valued comrades to others, it's just a bit all over the place. Idle thought really.
Answer: Lucas has gone on record as to the treatment of droids in Star Wars being a thought-provoking allegory for the way people treat minorities. I've never heard him specifically talk about how it's almost never commented-upon in-universe, but intentionally or not, I'm of the opinion that it's more compelling this way. Why doesn't anybody do anything about the way droids are treated? Well, go around asking people why they don't do anything about the way other people are treated and you'll quickly find out.
Answer: Not in the films, but several of the books removed from canon by Disney mentioned a "droids' rights movement" that decried memory wipes and other dismissals of sentience. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Droid_rights_ (movement).
Solo, which is canon, features a subplot about droid's rights. So not everything has been scrubbed regarding this topic.
Chosen answer: Nobody in the Star Wars universe, except on rare occasions, has shown sympathy towards a droid or any AI. Even though these robots learn, they don't really evolve beyond their programming so they aren't considered "alive" (unlike in other fiction like Wall-E), not even by the most sentimental of people. Organic beings develop attachments to droids, but mostly towards their usefulness, not because they like their personality, not even Luke Skywalker towards R2 or Poe towards BB-8. If they are destroyed, too bad. Memory wiping doesn't remove the droid's original programming either, and their way of talking and manners stay.
In Episode 2, Obi-Wan makes the offhanded comment "Well, if droids could think there'd be none of us here", implying that droids do not actually possess artificial intelligence. R2-D2 seems to be a particularly unusual droid in that he is uncommonly resilient and steadfast, which makes his allies quite fond of him. Poe and BB-8 appear to have a bond that goes beyond simply being attached to the droid's usefulness, but like you say that appears to be a unique case.
Just because he said that doesn't mean they didn't have AI. They think for themselves, so they have AI. Just not as advanced as in other fiction.
The point is raised again later in the film when the cloners state that unlike droids, clones can think for themselves.
27th Oct 2017
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Who has higher authority, Vader, or Admiral Tarkin? It seems like they have equal authority over the galactic empire. Shouldn't Vader have authority over Tarkin? Vader is supposed to be the Emperor's second in command.
Answer: Vader and Tarkin are assigned to totally different jobs. I think of it sort of like if the head of the CIA were visiting a huge army base. Vader appears to be focused on thwarting the rebels (at this point mostly through intelligence gathering and identifying spies) while Tarkin supervises the construction of the Death Star, and since Vader's current mission is about the Death Star plans their assignments intertwine for the time being and it's like two departments working together. Vader may well have more favor with the Emperor, but he'll defer to Tarkin while he's in his jurisdiction, so to speak.
Answer: Vader isn't second in command of the Empire; he's the Emperor's apprentice, albeit a very powerful one. Vader isn't in the "chain of command" so to speak. He's more of a tool the Emperor uses.
Answer: Tarkin is the commander of the death star and thus the supreme leader of the Empire's armed forces. Vader is more of a specialist, high in rank but not in charge of the military by himself, but probably successor of the emperor unlike Tarkin. You could see it as Tarkin being Heinrich Himmler and Vader being Joseph Goebbels in terms of hierarchy.
6th Jul 2005
Star Wars (1977)
Question: There's a HUGE rumor that's been going around since Return of the Jedi came out: There's actually three more scripts (besides the prequels). Is there, in fact, a Star Wars: Episode VII, Episode VIII, and Episode IX? If so, what are they about?
Answer: While planning Star Wars, Lucas had a vague notion of doing a long series of movies inspired by old serials, then dropped that idea in favor of just one. When Star Wars became a phenomenon and sequels became feasible, Lucas revisited the idea. He thought of three trilogies along with some stand-alone "in-between" stories for a total of 12 films. By the time of The Empire Strikes Back's release, this was pared down to the 9 mainline films, going by interviews with Lucas and the cast at the time. By Return of the Jedi, Lucas had decided to end the saga there, with the option that he could revisit the first three at some later point. It's unclear if Lucas ever had any specific story ideas for the proposed sequel trilogy, and they never had any scripts. Producer Gary Kurtz suggested in an interview they would've been about Luke's twin sister (not Leia), though many fans are skeptical about just how much he would know about them. Of course since this question was asked a sequel trilogy was written and released.
Answer: This was long a long-standing rumour, but George Lucas always denied it. He allowed various authors to cover the history of that time period in book form - if he'd had any serious intention of doing films set in that timeframe, he wouldn't have done that. Since that time of course Disney took over the franchise and has announced new films, but entirely separate from the previous "expanded universe" of the novels, and not involving any ideas George Lucas may have had in the past.
Answer: I'm not sure how old this question is but it is a sequel trilogy. Episode VII : The Force Awakens is about a scavenger and former stormtrooper teaming up the Resistance to attempt to defeat the new First Order and Kylo Ren (Ben Solo). Episode VIII : The Last Jedi is about Rey finding Luke Skywalker who is in exile hoping that he would be left alone, and he tells the story of how he tried to murder his nephew who in retaliation, turned to the dark side. Episode IX : Rise of Skywalker is about the return of Emperor Palpatine and recovering Sith Wayfinders that will lead them to Exegol and kill him, with Billy Dee Williams returning as Lando Calrissian.
25th Oct 2004
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Question: Was it always Lucas' original plan to have Darth Vader be Luke's father?
Answer: The short, short answer to this is "Yes... from a certain point of view." The long answer is complicated and depends completely on what timeframe you mean by "always." If you're going back all the way to the early rough drafts of the early-mid 70s (which actually resemble Episode I more than they do the Star Wars of 1977), you'll find there's a cyborg father figure protagonist that makes a heroic sacrifice, and then another character that is a "black knight" villain that eventually turns to the side of good near the end. Just to make things more complicated, there is yet another character, a villain by the name of "Darth Vader" that is a human Imperial officer like Grand Moff Tarkin. It may be a stretch to count all that as "Darth Vader was always the father" but the pieces were all there, at least.
(1) Now the earliest explicit mention on any documented material that Darth Vader is Luke's father comes from notes Lucas made outlining the general story of the trilogy and its place in the larger Star Wars saga. These were found in the archives for The Empire Strikes Back, but they are undated and we don't know if they were written before Star Wars (1977) and carried forward, or if they were written afterward. These were found fairly recently (made public in 2010) and as far as I know Lucas has never commented publicly about them.
(3) One thing we know, at least, is that Lucas had come up with the idea of Darth Vader the father before starting work on The Empire Strikes Back. Something incredibly odd, though, is that the first draft written by Leigh Brackett does not feature the twist (and in fact introduces Anakin himself as a ghost); for a long time many fans took this as proof that Lucas hadn't thought of the idea at all by then, but after the series outline was discovered it was made apparent that Lucas simply hadn't told Brackett for some reason. Perhaps he wasn't sure yet that he wanted to go through with it, or maybe at that point he was thinking of revealing it in the third film. Either way, Lucas would write the second draft himself, and that's where the twist first appears in script form.
(2) Something that must be understood about Star Wars (1977) is that it was an ALTERNATIVE to his original plans of a saga. By then he didn't think it was realistic that he would be able to make a long series of many movies, so he came up with a "Plan B": he crammed the general story of the trilogy into one movie. So we know that when Star Wars (1977) was filming, Darth Vader was NOT Luke's father, because this one movie was IT, that was the whole story. But what we DON'T know, is whether that means Lucas had abandoned the idea of Vader being the father in order to simplify the story, or if Lucas simply hadn't thought of that at all just yet.
(2, cont.) On a side note, you can tell by watching Star Wars (1977) how it has condensed the story of the trilogy. The middle portion has the characters trying to escape capture from the Empire while one of them loses a duel with Darth Vader (like The Empire Strikes Back) and the third act is a final battle against the Death Star above a forest moon (like Return of the Jedi). The first act features a member of royalty on the run while a couple of protagonists find the main hero on a desert planet, resembling the original drafts and by extension Star Wars: Episode I. Because of this we've arguably never actually had a "pure" first chapter to the original trilogy, even though Lucas eventually had the film serve this purpose anyway.
Answer: Yes, however, he didn't want anyone to KNOW about it. In fact, the original script said "'Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father.' 'He told me enough... he told me YOU killed him!' 'No, Obi-Wan killed your father'" Even Hamill was only told the real line just before shooting, so his reaction is somewhat natural.
Question: I used to have a VHS version of this movie - I don't remember if it was the original or restored version. On the VHS, when Vader mentally speaks to Luke after the fight on Bespin, Luke calls him "Father" (before trying to talk to Obi-wan). Am I just remembering wrong, or did he really say that? If so, does anyone know why it was removed on the DVD?
24th Oct 2018
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Question: Why does Han irritate Leia so much?
Answer: Star Wars being for the young and the young at heart, Han and Leia's relationship unfolds in a deliberately childish manner that kids can relate to and adults will find comedic. Leia is irritated at herself for her attraction to Han, and certainly unamused that Han teases her over it, while at the same time he is not brave enough to admit his own feelings, either.
Answer: Because Leia is trying to bring down an evil empire while Han keeps trying to charm her. Also she sees potential in him as a leader and fighter instead of just a mercenary smuggler.
Question: Is there any reason why Luke believes what Darth Vader says when he tells him that he is his father?
Answer: The vision Luke sees in the cave on Dagobah is a clue to this. Luke is realizing he has a lot more in common with Darth Vader than the idealized father he'd always imagined. When Vader tells him he's his father, Luke doesn't want to believe it, but he simply can't deny that it feels much more true that his father would be someone passionate and reckless like himself rather than someone who exemplifies a noble Jedi, which feels like an obvious myth in hindsight.
18th Nov 2020
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Question: What happened to Luke's hand after Vader cut it off?
Answer: It fell into the reactor shaft alongside his lightsaber, unrecoverable. It probably fell outside like Luke did and dropped into the clouds of the gas giant Bespin.
Well, what about the thing that fell after Luke landed on the satellite dish outside? Was that Luke's hand?
No, nothing as macabre as that. Probably a piece of cloth or something that fell out of his pocket. Or, possibly, his lightsaber. But I doubt they would have him watch his own hand fall.
I always assumed that was his blaster, falling out of the holster.
In the Legends continuity someone found Luke's severed hand and used it to create Luke's evil clone, known as Luuke.
Answer: In the books before Disney, the hand was recovered by an Ugnaught (the pig-like people in Cloud City) and was taken with his lightsaber to the Emperor's secret storehouse on the planet Wayland. It was later used (in the Thrawn trilogy) to create a clone of Luke.
1st May 2020
Alien 3 (1992)
Question: After Ripley discovered that an alien queen was inside of her, why didn't she just kill herself immediately?
Answer: She didn't have the nerve to do it herself, especially since she doesn't have something like a gun where it can be done instantly. Even when backed into a corner by the Company, she still hesitates, she doesn't jump to her death immediately. The survival instinct is very powerful.
Answer: Early on, Ripley wanted Dillon to kill her after she learned she was carrying an alien embryo. He agreed he would, but only if she helped the inmates kill the other alien.
But the question is why didn't she kill herself as soon as she found out. As in on the spot? As soon as she discovered that an alien queen was growing inside of her, she went to find the xenomorph in hopes it would kill her but it didn't. It would have made more sense for her to take her life immediately as soon as she discovered a xenomorph queen was growing inside of her rather then wanting the xenomorph on the loose to do it or asking Dillon to.
I agree. It would have made more sense for her to just end her life right there rather going to Dillon after the fact and ask him to do it.
5th May 2017
Alien (1979)
Question: Is there ANY reason the smaller "lifeboat" ship (think they call it the Narcissus) Ripley evacuates into at the end, couldn't have been used as a lander to travel down to the planet in the beginning too (simply leave the Nostromo in orbit, with or without skeleton crew)? It seems, actually is, much less likely to be damaged in the initial landing, and, for that matter, much easier to take off afterwards (being much less massive). It also would have provided one more layer of quarantine containment for the people who stayed in the lander (who may or not be all the other four, in fact one would probably be just fine (Ripley manages the Narcissus just fine at the end), and it would have been a lot faster for the singleton to simply put on their own spacesuit if/when trouble is encountered, and in so doing, preserve their own personal uncontaminated space). The three explorers and the lander guard could simply see to trouble in Narcissus' sickbay-laboratory, without tainting the three back in the mothership, give Kane first response while taking him up to the main lab on the ship, while giving the orbit people warning to put on their suits/have some form of mobile quarantine ready for him.
Answer: It's not apparent whether the shuttle is capable of landing at all, much less launch itself back into space afterward even if it could.
Chosen answer: The small "lifeboat" ship was not equipped for the entire crew's long-term survival. As they are in deep space, there is no where close for them to land. They would just be adrift in space, as it takes years to travel from one destination to another. To survive long voyages, the crew needs to be in hibernation. The small ship would be a last resort in the hope that any survivors would be found before they died of starvation and/or lack of oxygen.
2nd Nov 2020
Alien (1979)
Question: The Alien brings Brett and Dallas back to its nest alive in order to create more Aliens. It seems that Brett had died in the process but Dallas is still alive. How then would the alien impregnate them without facehuggers complete with an egg?
Answer: It's possible that Brett was the only one being turned into an egg and that Dallas was merely stuck to the wall to be the eventual facehugger host.
Dallas is more than just merely stuck to the wall. He is in physical agony, his eyes appear to no longer work properly, and he has barely enough strength to muster more than a couple words. And the words he can get out are him pleading with Ripley to end his suffering.
Rather than burning Dallas to death it would have been more humane to let him blow up with the ship.
Perhaps so, but Dallas was pleading for his suffering to end right then and there. It appeared that the burning was no more agonizing than what he was going through, which means he must have been in immense pain already.
Answer: Actually the alien was using Brett and Dallas to make new facehugger eggs. The scene, only shown in the Director's Cut, shows Brett partway through being turned into an egg and Dallas in what appears to be the very beginning of this process. This scene was cut from the theatrical release and as such, James Cameron did not include this feature of the alien lifecycle in the sequel. Cameron showed the eggs are laid by a queen and the franchise has continued with this approach since Aliens and has never revisited the idea that alien eggs are created from the bodies of humans. Since this scene only appears in the Director's Cut, its status as canon remains in question. However, some fans reconcile this by theorizing that in the absence of a queen a single alien can use human bodies to create more facehuggers.
23rd Jan 2007
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: Recently I watched the movie with commentary of amongst others Carrie Fisher. I noticed that she didn't have any comment about the scene where Harrison Ford puts his hand on her breast. Did she ever made a comment about that in a magazine or in an interview? Did Harrison Ford?
Answer: Coincidentally, in the time since this question was first posted, Carrie Fisher revealed that she and Harrison Ford were having an affair. While this may not necessarily have anything to do with the incident asked in the question, it adds the possibility that mentioning it would have been too close to an uncomfortable subject she hadn't yet admitted.
Answer: I've never seen anything on the subject. Seriously, though, why would either of them comment on the incident? It was an on-set slip-up that made it into the film, nothing more than that and, to be blunt, hardly unusual. In all likelihood, neither really remembers the incident among the many slip-ups that both have undoubtedly experienced in their lengthy careers.
10th Nov 2007
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: How come this movie barely showed anything about Luke and Leia's mother? Luke doesn't even ask anyone what her name was (maybe that was hidden from Leia, but he can probably guess that Yoda or Obi-wan would know). I know we can assume that she was discussed off-screen, but they could have revealed a little more about her.
Answer: The Jedi are shown to have something of a blind spot in regards to matters of the heart. Note that when Luke confronts Obi-Wan over lying to him about his father's fate, Obi-Wan's response is haughty and defensive, and gives Luke nothing in terms of regret or apology. They're focused on their mission, not on how Luke feels. Why waste time, in their eyes, telling Luke about his mother? If they had their way, he wouldn't even know about his father. The prequels would make this more explicit, showing that the Jedi are conditioned from the beginning to let go of all "passions" because they could so easily be corrupted, and their inability to understand Anakin's emotions just contributes to his downfall.
Answer: Why can we assume that she was discussed off-screen? Luke's got more important things to talk about than who his mother was. Yoda dies shortly afterwards and Luke's understandably more interested in how Darth Vader, given that he's got to go up against him, can be his father when talking to Obi-wan's ghost shortly after. Not a lot of time for general chit-chat. Behind the scenes, at that point, very little would have been decided about their mother, as it would be irrelevant to the plot of the trilogy and to discuss her on-screen would have wasted time and slowed everything down.
3rd May 2016
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: I am confused by Darth Vader's attitude in this movie. In Episode V, he asked Luke to join him and get rid of the Emperor. He seemed quite confident and happy about this idea. Now, in Episode VI, he tells Luke that he "must" obey his master, that the Emperor is Luke's master now, etc. Why does he now want himself and Luke to be the Emperor's servants?
Answer: There are a few possibilities. One is that Vader's proposal was always a ruse - note that even the Emperor offers himself as bait to tempt Luke to turn. Another is that Vader's plan was genuine but he abandons it after Luke rejects his offer. Afterwards Luke's resolve has only gotten stronger, and at that point the only hope to turn Luke to the dark side will require the assistance of the Emperor himself. In either case it's probably best to see Vader's demeanor here as an extension of his final scene in The Empire Strikes Back, where we last see him quietly retreating in disappointment.
Answer: Vader was always the emperor's servant. In ESB, he was ordered by the emperor to turn Luke. Vader (as a Sith) was attempting to convince Luke to follow him (his father) so that they could overthrow the emperor. Once that failed, he could no longer keep his plan a secret from the emperor. Vader most likely suspected the emperor planned to replace him with Luke anyway.
11th Oct 2016
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: After Anakin becomes Darth Vader, he seems ruthless, actually evil. "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!" Is just one quote. That being the case, this movie makes it seem like Anakin knows that he's evil and wishes he wasn't. Basically, my question is, why didn't Anakin turn on Palpatine sooner? Or simply leave the Sith?
Answer: Darth: "Obi-Wan once thought as you do. You don't know the power of the dark side. I must obey my master." It's implied that the dark side is intoxicating, once you totally give in to the dark side it has a hold on you, and appeals to morality and rationalization are useless against your lust for its power. (On a symbolic level, the dark side is a metaphor for vice. Darth Vader is an addict and abusive parent. It's actually funny how many scenes still make sense if you replace "the dark side" with "the bottle" or similar).
If we bring the prequels into it, it's one of the criticisms of those films that they only make the question of how much Anakin is a "true believer" more confusing. But it stands to reason that at first Anakin may feel vindicated in his resentment toward the Jedi. Later on, Vader may not feel that as strongly, but by then his anger has turned toward himself for failing to save Padme. He may feel that a man as terrible as he does not deserve to be "rescued" from the dark side, leading to a feedback loop where he only gets further enamored with its power and does more evil things which causes him to hate himself even more, and so it goes.
Answer: Anakin was seduced by the emperor to think that the Jedi were evil. This was partly fueled by anger &fear, thinking Padme would die if Palpatine didn't help save her. After he turned to Darth Vader & joined the dark side, he eventually realised the true nature of the Emperor, but he was to weak to do anything about it. Darth Vader still wanted to rule the galaxy, but didn't want the emperor controlling everything. He just wanted to use Luke to help overthrow the emperor and take over the galaxy. It wasn't until he found out he had a daughter also, and saw Luke about to die by the hands of the emperor, that he realised that Luke was right & he needed to switch sides.
Vader was not just using Luke to kill the Emperor. He actually did want to rule the galaxy as father and son - if Luke would turn to the Dark Side, that is.
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: In the original draft of the script, it was heavily implied that Paul was killed by Jason and Ginny was the only survivor. And in fact, an alternate ending was filmed showing he died. However, any direct references to him having died were removed from the final film during editing (in part because the special effects were deemed "too silly"), and his fate was instead left ambiguous. There is also some SLIGHT evidence he may have survived, as a radio broadcast in "Friday the 13th Part III" says eight bodies were found at the camp, only only eight people at the camp died on-screen. (Paul would have made nine). But ultimately, it's left up to the viewer to decide whether you believe he's alive or dead.
TedStixon