Question: When you see the shot of Milo peeing on the long-haired thug, what are the other things sticking out Milo's body? It's in the first shot when he's peeing, but they're gone when the thug shoots at him, and he runs off.
lionhead
21st Oct 2020
The Mask (1994)
10th Oct 2020
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Marty shows Doc in 1885 the image of the tombstone, and he says that he wished he'd paid Buford off. Why can't he just round up 80 dollars to give to Buford and apologise for not doing that in the first place?
Answer: Adjusting for inflation, $80 back in 1885 is equivalent to about $2,143.65 today. Not something you can just conjure up easily, least of all back then. And Marty couldn't just take 1985 money back to 1885 and expect people to accept it.
Except that Doc was in 1885 and could have just gone to the bank and withdrew the $80's.
How? He arrives in 1885 and magically has the equivalent of $2,100 already in a bank account? He presumably borrowed it from Buford in the first place precisely because he didn't have that much cash available.
Doc didn't borrow money from Buford. He time-traveled with a briefcase filled with currencies from different time periods, including the 1800s. Doc had shoed Buford's horse for $5, for which Buford never paid him. When one shoe later came off later, causing Buford to be thrown, Buford shot the horse and demanded Doc pay him $75 for it and $5 for a broken bottle of whiskey.
Where would have get the $80 from? You're assuming he had the $80 available to him. The bank wouldn't just give out the money for free.
You can't take out $80 in 1985 money, and give it to someone in 1885. It would look like play money to them. U.S. currency looked a lot different back then.
Well he could technically get that amount worth in gold or silver.
And, as stated, since Doc was in 1885, more specifically, eight months in 1885, he could have just taken the money out of the bank considering he had a job as a blacksmith.
In Back to the Future 2, Doc shows Marty a briefcase full of money from different time periods, including various mid-1800 currencies, that he carried with him in the DeLorean. (There are online screen shots of the contents.) Doc refused to pay Tannen the $80 because he never owed it to him. Tannen was extorting him.
Answer: Buford was a crazed gunfighter, even if they paid off the $80 that wouldn't have satisfied him. He loved to shoot and kill. He wanted a showdown to show people he is to be feared and not messed with.
17th Oct 2020
The Book of Eli (2010)
17th Oct 2020
Jaws (1975)
17th Oct 2020
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
Question: At last when Cage wakes up and the battle is won, does that mean Cage is forever immortal? Because whenever he will die, the day will reset itself, even if he dies of old age, the day will reset. So will he live immortally?
Answer: No, he got the ability to reset time from the aliens. They are dead now so the ability won't work anymore.
Answer: It depends on how you view the reset power. When he and Rita have the Alpha's blood in them, they had the power to reset the day when they died, but that power wasn't their own. It was the Omega that was resetting the day, which it did whenever an Alpha died. But now that the Omega is dead, there's no reset power, so when Cage does die, even with the Alpha's blood in him, he won't return to the past. Now if somehow having the Alpha blood resets the day for Cage, even with the Omega's death, all he'd have to do is get a blood transfusion again and he'll lose the ability to reset.
3rd Jun 2015
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Question: Why does everyone love Gaston? I can kinda see why from his looks/biceps but is there another reason why they love him so much?
Answer: I would say he was admired rather than loved and for very superficial reasons. He is young, handsome, manly, and extroverted. People often admire and wish for those traits. They project other non-existent qualities onto such a person while blind to their flaws. In Gaston's case, he is arrogant and self-absorbed. It is very typical of our society to celebrate people for their physical attributes, even though they may lack integrity in other areas of their lives.
I'd have to disagree. The film takes place in the 1790s to early 1800s if you ignore the Eiffel tower in Be Our Guest. So not long after the revolution at all. The peasantry was suffering quite a bit of food insecurity, which we see reflected in the opening song, (the eggs are too expensive, the bread is stale, etc.) Gaston is a hunter, and he's able to provide for his village which might otherwise have suffered a bit. I'd argue that his super-inflated ego may be a result of the praise he rightly earned.
Answer: I get the impression that Gaston comes from a family with some amount of wealth and social status - maybe not royalty, but perhaps more wealth and status than most people in the town have. Also, despite being vain and arrogant, he is bold and somewhat cunning. Many people like to latch on to a "leader" type.
13th Oct 2020
Scream (1996)
Question: So Tatum is running from Ghostface, she's running to do what exactly here? I'm confused why she didn't just try to open the garage then run to the beer and throw it at him and run out instead of going through the doggy door and dying like that. (01:06:57)
Answer: She panicked. And when someone is panicked they make stupid decisions.
Answer: It is also known that Stu locked the door, so she couldn't escape.
13th Oct 2020
1917 (2019)
Question: Does Schofield throw away his canteen after he pours water over his eyes? In any event he has it again to fill with milk at the abandoned farm house.
Answer: He puts his canteen back after he poured water over his eyes. You can tell because after he gets up it's hanging on his side again.
24th Oct 2018
Toy Story 3 (2010)
Question: How come Andy didn't give his old toys to Molly?
Answer: More than likely she didn't want them. Besides Barbie the toys never really speak of Molly at all, so it's likely she rarely ever played with them, if at all.
Answer: Then why does Andy have Mrs. Potatohead? From what I remember Molly got Mrs. Potatohead for Christmas at the end of the first movie so shouldn't she belong to Molly?
It is suggested Molly hardly played with Mrs. Potato Head and she was kept alongside Mr. Potato Head in Andy's room since then. The rest of Andy's toys are mostly "boy" toys, so Molly may well not be interested in them anyway.
Either Andy borrowed or even kept it in case Molly didn't need it or want it.
22nd Sep 2013
Independence Day (1996)
Question: In the scene where the pilots are receiving their initial briefing, the officer in charge is a Lt Colonel, but in a later scene where the alien ship is approaching area 51, he is a captain. Is this the same officer or is this a mistake?
Answer: This is indeed a mistake. The character is played by Bill Smitrovich and is listed as playing Captain Watson, but in the briefing scene he is wearing collar insignia for a Lt. Colonel.
8th Feb 2018
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Question: In the radar site scene, after Miller lets Steamboat Willie free, Reiben wants to leave the mission, and Horvath is holding his gun on him, Jackson also pulls his gun on Horvath, his superior. Nobody seems to care about it. Doesn't it count as a serious violation of military law or something?
Answer: It certainly does, not only on Reiben's part but also Horvath's. However, Capt. Miller was in no place to arrest or write up anybody as they were behind enemy lines and thus, no Allied Military Police to place anybody in custody, he even offered Reiben the option to put in for transfer. Miller understood the men's frustration with the mission and the loss of Wade and Caparzo, so instead of citing orders like he did after Caparzo was killed, decided to defuse the situation by inquiring about the men's pool on what he did as a civilian, then telling them. It worked, as Horvath and Reiben lowered their weapons and calmed the other men.
What about the fact that the soldiers in the movie are shown cursing a lot. Wouldn't that also be in violation of military law?
Maybe in the ultra-PC world of today, but certainly not WW2. I separated from service nearly 20 years ago, but can definitely say it was almost against regs NOT to swear.
What is the ultra PC world?
PC means Political Correct.
Read UCMJ article 134.
No. Swearing is fine in the US Military. It's very common. When I was in there I heard at least 1 F Bomb almost every 2 minutes.
24th Feb 2004
Labyrinth (1986)
Question: Can anyone explain the riddle the two guards tell Sarah (before she falls down into the helping hands). I know there's a certain question you can ask and the answer helps you figure out which door it is. can anyone help?
Answer: It is the same as multiplying. Two positives or two negatives make a positive and a mixture of positive Lets say right door and negative left door will always return a negative answer. To simplify further lets call the one door -X and the other door +X. -X (X) = -X So when done this way the answer you get back is always the negative. Then to switch polarity you just multiply by -1. Or for the more vocal learners out there the friend (+) of my friend (+) is my friend (+). The friend (+) of my enemy (-) is my enemy (-) and lastly the enemy (-) of my enemy (-) is my friend (+) or to explain with the doors The Liar and The truth Teller Produce/tell a lie when you have one answer for the other (multiply thier values). So you know the answer is the polar opposite or inverse value.
Answer: One Guard always lies, and one always tells the truth. This is absolute. So when Sarah asks Guard A to tell her what Guard B would say, she knows it will be a lie, no matter what. If Guard A were the liar, he would have to lie about what Guard B would have said. Since Guard B would have told the truth, Guard A would then have to tell the lie to Sarah. However, if Guard B were the liar, he would obviously have lied. However, Guard A would then have to answer the question truthfully which would be the lie from Guard B. Hence, no matter which guard is the liar and which guard is the truth-teller, the answer that Sarah gets would have one and exactly one lie in the answer. Knowing this, Sarah takes the other road.
Answer: I still don't understand how Sarah's logic isn't incredibly flawed. Both guards can say yes or no depending where the right door is and I don't understand how she reached a decision with this in mind.
She figures out that the red guard is the truth teller because the blue guard saying the door behind Red leads to the castle truthfully is impossible since if that's true that would mean Red is lying but said the truth. So, Blue saying the door behind Red is to the castle has to be a lie, so that's the liar and the door behind Blue is to the castle. Basically she asks Red if Blue is the liar, and he said yes, which can only be the truth because a no would mean he is the liar but tells the truth about that. He can't answer no. In both cases (either the liar or the truth teller) the Yes means that the door behind Red is not to the castle.
In no way does Sarah figure out which guard is the truth teller. She just forced the guard she spoke with to give her an answer that contains a lie. She didn't ask the guard which way she should go. She asked the guard what the other guard's answer would be. The liar would lie about what the truth teller would say, hence it would be a lie. And the truth teller would accurately report that the liar would lie, hence the answer would be a lie. Try it out with two of your friends. Have the two of them decide on one to tell the truth and one to lie, unless you change her question or one of them gets confused and answers incorrectly, the answer to your question would have to be a lie no matter who you spoke with.
No it's more specific than that. She asked one guard if the other guard would say if this door would lead to the castle. That's different than asking one guard if the other guard would answer with a lie.
I never said she asked if the other guard would answer with a lie. She asked a question that by its very structure has to be answered with a lie. She guaranteed that the answer would be a lie and then took the other door.
No, again, it's more complicated than that. I was wrong about one thing though, she doesn't know who is the truth teller and who the liar is but she asked a question in such a way that it doesn't matter. The question she asks is indirect, she asks it in a way that both the truthteller and the liar would give the same answer. The Yes being the truth means the other door is to the castle, the yes being a lie would also mean the other door is to the castle. It is true she doesn't find out of who the liar and who the truth teller is, she only figures out which door to pick. In her logic she does conclude that the Red one is the truthteller but in reality she doesn't know that. But she is not wrong about which door to pick.
16th Jan 2017
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Question: Two questions: something I have never understood about Marty traveling into the future to stop his kid from going to jail. In the first movie when Doc. puts his dog into the time machine and sends him 1 min into the future the car disappears for 1 min and arrives back with the dog in the car. Doc explains that as far as the dog is concerned the trip was instantaneous but to Marty and Doc the dog disappears for 1 min. The question is when Marty travels into the future shouldn't he have "disappeared" for 30 years and not had an older self. The second question is, why is it so important for them to travel 30 years into the future to stop his kid from getting arrested, couldn't he have just as easily told Marty "hey on this day and year, don't let your kid leave the house. You have 30 years to figure out a reason or break his leg."
Answer: In the film, that one event sets off a chain reaction that destroys Marty's family, so it's paramount that they stop it from ever happening. Too many things could go wrong just trying to prevent it. Since Marty Jr. looks like 1985 Marty, the plan is to have Marty Sr. Take his place, rather than try to get 2015 Marty Sr. To ground his son or something. Plus, Doc says it's important they don't know too much about their future, so that's why he can't just tell them what to do in 30 years because he could reveal too much. Of course, if you overthink it too much, you can make it all fall apart, or come up with different ways to accomplish the same thing.
Chosen answer: To answer the first question, it's because Marty ultimately returns to the past and therefore does live his normal life for the next 30 years. Had Einstein traveled back that one minute, he would be there as well. As to the second question, Doc needs to be sure Marty's son doesn't go and can't leave it to chance that Marty will take take care of it after 30 years.
21st Sep 2020
X-Men: First Class (2011)
Question: If Magneto didn't kill Shaw, what would they have done? It seems like killing him was the only possible way to stop him.
Answer: Charles wanted to incapacitate Shaw and all he needed to do this was to get the helmet off. Once the helmet is off Charles could freeze Shaw and they could figure out a way to hold him. With no helmet Shaw is very little threat (if at all) to Charles. Erik kills a defenseless man unnecessarily.
Actually Xavier says that he can only control this man for so long. Meaning he was struggling keeping him frozen like that. They didn't have forever. An option for Xavier could have been to release Shaw once he knew what Erik was going to do but that could cause Shaw to go nuclear on the spot and kill everyone.
Yes, he could only hold him for so long but instead of taking the opportunity to incapacitate/capture him, Erik steals the helmet, gloats, and then slowly pushes a coin through his head.
I'm not sure what the actual plan was. Charles freezing was the only thing preventing Shaw from killing everyone. Even if Erik manages to wrap Shaw into something, as soon as his mind is free he will be able to use his abilities. He killed him slowly, which was unnecessary, but killing him was the only option IMHO.
21st Sep 2020
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: Are there canonically any Jedi with lightsabers that are yellow, orange or just plain white? Mace Windu got a distinguishing purple one at Samuel L Jackson's request, and pink ones I suppose aren't viewed to be intimidating enough.
Answer: Ahsoka Tano uses white lightsabers later in life: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Ahsoka_Tano%27s_white_lightsabers, reflecting her choice not to affiliate with the Jedi or Sith. While yet to be confirmed, Rosario Dawson is strongly rumoured to be playing the character in season 2 of The Mandalorian, and we may well see her with white lightsabers in live action then.
Answer: In Clone Wars we see Yellow (also in episode IX), Yellow-Green, Light Blue, Black and White. In the canon videogames you even see Orange, Cyan and Magenta.
3rd Sep 2020
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: Why didn't Hermione use the time turner to save Buckbeak before Scabbers bit Ron, since she had it on her?
Answer: They needed to make it look like Buckbeak had escaped by himself. If they had freed him earlier, the Ministry of Magic would have believed that Hagrid deliberately released him, and held him accountable. They freed Buckbeak while Dumbledore and Fudge were inside Hagrid's hut so that the Ministry would know Hagrid was with them when Buckbeak "escaped" and Hagrid could not be blamed.
I'm not sure if I explained myelf properly. What I mean is, when Hermione was crying on Ron's shoulder, why not she just tell them about the time turner then instead of crying? Or just go back in time herself.
She's not allowed to tell anyone about the time turner. It's only after the events in the shack, when things are a lot more dire, does Dumbledore basically give permission for her to use it. She also had to sign to say she wouldn't use it for anything other than it's intended use. Saving 1 Hippogriff is not worth the risk of being caught.
I know she can't tell anyone but like I said, she could have done it on her own. Then they wouldn't know.
She can't mess with it and use it to do things on her own without approval. She was given it to be able to attend more classes and was specifically told not to use it otherwise.
17th Sep 2020
Iron Man 3 (2013)
6th Sep 2020
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Question: Is this movie in the same universe as Reservoir Dogs? If it is, it would mean Mr Orange has a twin brother, who talks with a British accent for some reason. If it isn't, it would mean Vic and Vincent Vega aren't related.
Answer: Short answer, yes, they're in the same universe. Tarantino has stated his films exist in two different universes. Basically a "real universe" and a "movie universe." Most (if not all) of his films are all set in this same "real universe" (like RD and PF) while some films, like "Kill Bill" and "Dusk to Dawn", appear in a special movie universe within the "real" universe (meaning they're actual movies that exist in the "real" universe). Some speculate that Mr. Orange was Pumpkin after he turned his life around and that PF is a prequel to RD. Although Pumpkin was called Ringo and not Freddy.
1st Sep 2020
Passengers (2016)
Question: How did Aurora drown, then magically 'undrown' while being submerged?
Answer: The shock of the gravity returning and crashing her back down into the pool probably woke her up before she was unconscious too long.
Yes, and it should be noted that drowning is a lengthy process. Much longer than it's shown in movies. After a person falls unconscious, it still usually takes a good five minutes at least for the brain to go into failure and for death by drowning to occur. It's safe to conclude Aurora wasn't without air for long enough for the brain to go into death.
Answer: I've looked at this scene very closely, and I don't see anything different about Milo between shots. Nothing is sticking out of him. He has a collar on with spikes on and maybe you are confusing the background with something that is coming out of him, but that is no different from the next shot.
lionhead