Question: Could Constantine have confessed his sin of suicide and repented, thereby removing that issue for him?
lionhead
13th Jun 2025
Constantine (2005)
Answer: No. He died without confession; what he does afterward doesn't matter. It's like being caught driving without insurance, then retrospectively buying a policy hoping to "get off." It doesn't work that way.
27th Jun 2025
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: Does Marty end up in a loop? Since he saw himself vanish in the time machine after returning home, wouldn't that second Marty come back to 1985 and run to the mall to see himself vanish again? Thus, seeing himself vanish again only to return a week later and repeat the cycle?
Answer: From a single point in time, yes it's a loop. But no single Marty ends up in a loop. Marty goes to the past, has his adventures there, returns to the future, sees his past self go to the past, and then carries on living out the rest of his life. The "second" Marty returns, then the third, etc. Except they're all the same Marty, just seeing the same point in time over and over again.
You're right enough. Except they are not the same Martys. Each time a new parallel timeline is created. They all live a different life before going back in time. Each time a Marty returns, he sees a Marty who has lived a different life (although probably not as different as the first two) go back. In fact, the second Marty might not have succeeded. But the first Marty successfully took his place, so the timeline was not erased.
Answer: It seems that time travel in BTTF creates new timelines, rather than fitting into one single "master" timeline. However, it's hard, if not impossible, to give a definitive and satisfying answer to this and other similar questions, since the time travel rules are fairly inconsistent throughout the film and the trilogy. There are time travel films that try very hard to maintain logical rules and in which there is one single, unchangeable "overall" timeline (for example, "Time Crimes", an excellent Spanish film from 2007). BTTF and its sequels do not fit into this category; time travel is a device to explore the themes and characters, rather than a rigid and perfectly thought-out system. Since the time travel is merely a plot device, the filmmakers likely did not care about making sure it all added up in the end, so plot holes abound once you start picking it apart.
27th Jun 2025
Christine (1983)
27th Jun 2025
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
Question: Roland asks if the radio and satellite phone were inside the trailer which went over the cliff, but he didn't even know the other group was there until his camp got attacked. Therefore, the only way he'd have known that the trailer went over the cliff is if he saw it. If that's the case, why didn't he tranquilise the Rexxes and save Eddie and the trailer?
Answer: Some time has passed since they pulled Malcolm and the others up from the rope and them talking about what to do next. They could have told them what happened to the trailer then.
13th Jun 2025
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Question: Voldemort's body was destroyed when he attempted to kill baby Harry. At the beginning of this movie, how does he have a small, frail body?
Answer: Going along with what Lionhead wrote: If I remember correctly from the books, after Voldemort was stopped by baby Harry, his spirit was still able to possess animals. Many of them couldn't survive being possessed for long, so he would move between animals. Wormtail found him in a forest before the events of "Goblet of Fire."
Answer: Adding to the other answers, after baby Harry destroyed Voldemort's body, his remaining soul shard fled to Albania. Voldemort possessed small animals and eventually attached himself to Professor Quirrell's head. After Quirrell's death, Voldemort, a disembodied spectral, again hid in the Albanian forest. Eventually, Pettigrew, in his Animagus rat form, discovered Voldemort's whereabouts from other rats. Pettigrew helped revive Voldemort, using dark magic and a potion to regain a weak, baby-like form. Voldemort was probably still possessing a small mammal, allowing him to drink the potion and transform.
Answer: It is described Voldemort had taken a dark potion that gave him a rudimentary body. The potion was made by Wormtail and was a blend of unicorn blood, Nagini's venom, and several dark spells invented by Voldemort. He had to drink from this potion every few hours to maintain his body or return back to spirit form. It is not made clear how Voldemort managed to drink the potion for the first time whilst still in spirit form though.
But how would drinking a potion be possible if he were only a spirit?
13th Jun 2025
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Question: Every Sith apprentice is supposed to eventually kill their master and become the new master, if I'm correct. Isn't this quite risky to the survival of the Sith Order? What if an apprentice defeats their master and decides not to continue?
Answer: They are not "supposed to" do that. In the Sith religion, there are no more than 2 Sith, a master and apprentice. Also, in the Sith religion is the embrace of greed, hatred, and selfishness. This basically encourages every apprentice to eventually kill their master, both convinced that they are more powerful than their master and no longer required, as well as wanting to become a master themselves and take on an apprentice, as part of their religious beliefs. It is a risky way to exist indeed, but that's what the Sith are all about, and it's better than before when there were a lot of them and they had devastating wars amongst themselves that indeed did almost manage to wipe them all out several times. Ironically, this system is better to maintain balance.
3rd Jun 2025
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Question: Joker says he drew fire watch. What is fire watch? I assume it's that someone has to be on guard in case they come under fire, but I don't think that would happen at boot camp (which I get is an ironic thing to say given what happens a few minutes later in that scene!).
Answer: Fire watch is just an informal term for sentry duty (to stand watch). I think it is derived from the fact that he will be the only one awake, so he is the only one to warn if there is indeed a fire, even though that's not the main duty. But that's just a guess.
Answer: Would add that the term "fire watch" has a long-time origin and several meanings. A fire watch is someone responsible for observing hot work activity to spot any fires during work operations. It applied to watching for and reporting forest fires during the summer. Also, "signal" fires were once a communication or warning system over long distances that assigned watchers continuously monitored. In the Army, a "fire watch" refers to a security duty assigned to soldiers, particularly during basic training, to monitor the barracks, especially at night. The colloquial phrase, "putting out fires," has come to mean dealing with problems as they occur.
11th May 2025
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Question: In this film, German soldiers and officers of the Wehrmacht incorrectly wear uniforms of the Afrika Korps, which was actually created in 1941. What would be the correct real-life uniform these characters should have been wearing in the desert by 1936?
Chosen answer: In real life, the Wehrmacht had no presence in Northern Africa in 1936. So whoever they were, they shouldn't have been there. Having said that, since there were no olive or khaki coloured desert uniforms yet (1940), the Wehrmacht soldiers should wear regular Heer field uniforms, which are grey-green ("field grey") and had the same style and looks from 1934 to 1945.
They were there on a personal mission for Hitler. It had nothing to do with the war. It was strictly an archaeological dig. The uniforms were relevant.
The British are not going to let armed and uniformed Wehrmacht soldiers and SS, trucks and warplanes walk around Egypt. Certainly not digging for treasure. There may not be war yet, but they were not exactly on good terms either.
17th Apr 2025
The Patriot (2000)
Question: Why does Susan refuse to speak during most of the movie?
Answer: She is angry, mostly from missing her mum, but also at her dad for being away so long and often.
27th Dec 2021
Alien Resurrection (1997)
Question: Curious on why the surgical equipment doesn't melt when removing the Queen chest burster from Ripley when she has acidic blood?
Answer: This is just speculation (and I haven't watched the movie for ages) but the operation is done with medical equipment in a facility designed for studying Aliens, which the military knows a little about. Maybe it is made of futuristic acid proof material.
If the surgical tools were acid proof, surely the floors of the cells that contain the grown alien specimens would also be acid proof. But that is how they escape: by sacrificing one of their own in order to spill acid blood onto the floor.
Well, you can imagine any acid-proof metal is probably very expensive. They can't make the entire station out of that stuff. Surgical equipment is probably necessary for their research, so they make an exception.
24th Mar 2025
Taken (2008)
24th Mar 2025
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Question: When the Emperor says that Luke is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker, is Darth Vader genuinely surprised, or is he pretending? If he is surprised, why was he already focused on finding Luke before the Emperor told him this? He was talking about Luke in particular before the Rebel base was found on Hoth.
Answer: Vader did sense the Force within Luke, but didn't know he was his son. The Emperor stating specifically that he is Anakin's offspring, and not Vader's (who are the same person after all), shows the Emperor tries his best not to link Vader to his own past. Vader himself clearly tries to do the same after finding out, but fails at the end.
24th Mar 2025
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Is it said, anywhere, if Anakin and Padmé decided on their "baby's" name (not knowing there were twins) before Anakin turned? Maybe they chose Luke for a boy, Leia for a girl? Padmé seems to say the names quickly during childbirth. However, after Vader discovers Luke in the future, it would be an interesting coincidence that he and Leia have those names, are the same age, and Leia looks like Padmé.
Answer: It is never said, but since Vader did not know Leia was his daughter, it's safe to assume Padmé came up with the names herself.
6th Mar 2025
Schindler's List (1993)
Question: Was the one-armed man a real person?
Answer: No, the one-armed man is listed as "Mr. Löwenstein" and played by Polish actor Henryk Bista. He is a fictional character.
Answer: According to an internet source, the one-armed man, Itzhak Stern, was real. Stern was a Polish Jew who worked for Oskar Schindler as an accountant and assisted in his rescue activities during the Holocaust. After the war, Stern moved to Israel.
Stern and the one-armed man are not the same person. The one-armed man, hired by Stern himself, dies during the movie, and Stern, as you wrote, survives.
6th Mar 2025
Deadpool 2 (2018)
3rd Apr 2017
The Mummy (1999)
Question: Anyone know what Beni said to Rick? I'm referring to what he said (I'm assuming Hebrew) before Rick said "What did you say?!" followed by "I'm not gonna tell you" by Beni.
Answer: Beni: As long as I serve him, I am immune. Rick: Immune from what? Beni: Piszkos állat [this is Hungarian for "filthy animal," an insult directed at Rick]. Rick: What did you say? Beni: I don't want to tell you. You'll just hurt me some more.
But how come he speaks Hungarian throughout the movie? Is he portrayed as a Hungarian in the film?
Beni is shown to speak many languages, as evident when he is confronted by the mummy and tries to pray to different religions.
Beni was a native Hungarian, but he was multilingual.
11th Jan 2025
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
11th Jan 2025
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Question: Why wasn't Daniel Radcliffe hired to play young James Potter as well? It was stated numerous times that Harry was similar to his father, so why did they hire someone else to play young James?
Answer: I think it would have been too confusing to use the same actor, who plays the main character, to play a younger version of the father. Similar is also not the same as identical, and to put Daniel Radcliffe through hours of make-up would be too cumbersome if one can simply hire another actor.
15th Nov 2024
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Question: To create a horcrux, a witch or wizard must first split their soul by intentionally and deliberately murdering someone without any guilt or remorse for their actions. Since Tom Riddle murdered countless people, shouldn't his soul have been split into more fragments rather than just seven?
Answer: The other answer is spot on, but I would add that it requires casting a specific spell while simultaneously killing someone to make horcrux and split one's soul. (The movie downplayed this and the spell name is never revealed in the book.) Professor Slughorn had told the young Tom Riddle that the act involved dark magic, though he did not provide details. Riddle apparently discovered what that dark spell was to make horcrux.
Answer: Next to the act of murder, one also has to purposefully turn an object into a horcrux in order to make a horcrux. Your soul splitting doesn't automatically send that piece of soul into an object; your soul will be split but still connected to your body. As for when Voldemort's killing curse rebounded onto Harry, his real body was destroyed, and his fragmented soul shattered because it was frail and unstable, causing a piece to detach and lodge onto Harry.
The question wasn't about how to make a Horcrux. It was about why each murder Tom committed didn't shatter his soul more. For example, if Tom killed 11,000 people, then shouldn't his soul have shattered into 11,000 pieces?
I think your soul splits when you kill someone, but doesn't split again when murdering someone else (which part would?). Once you murder, your soul is split and will stay split until you detach a part of your soul. It's not like Tom could have saved up on fragments of soul by killing and then put pieces of his soul into objects one after the other. He had to murder and then purposefully put that split part into an object, and only then be able to split his soul again with another murder.
To further clarify, according to J.K. Rowling, random killing damages a wizard's soul, but does not split it. That requires using Dark magic and deliberately storing the soul shard into a vessel, making it a horcrux. Riddle chose six significant objects for the horcruxes and left one soul piece in his body. When Riddle cast the Killing Curse at baby Harry, it rebounded and simultaneously destroyed Riddle's body and sheared off another soul piece. Harry's forehead scar was an accidental seventh horcrux that Riddle never knew existed. It was Lily Potter's love and sacrificing her life to save Harry that protected him from the killing curse.
9th Nov 2024
Predator (1987)
Question: After the Predator gets out of the water and walks past Dutch, it sees some small animal (not sure what) and kills it. Since it kills for sport, targets experts with weapons, why kill a defenceless animal? (01:20:00)
Answer: It simply might have seen killing a different animal as yet another "trophy." Especially if it hunts for sport and is on a different planet. I know a few people who hunt for "sport," and many of their targets are non-dangerous, defenceless animals that could not realistically fight back. It's just... a thing for some people.
Except that the Yautja only kill people who have weapons. The animal was defenceless, and it wouldn't have been very, what the Yautja perceive, as being honourable.
The issue is that you're going by logic established in sequels/spin-off material and trying to retroactively connect it. Nothing in the original movie explicitly states this. Even the name you're using, "Yautja," wasn't coined until a spin-off novel that came out seven years later. Sometimes sequels and spin-offs will "rewrite the rules" and retcon from the original, thus creating small inconsistencies. You just have to accept that it's something that happened in this movie, even if it contradicts future series "lore." You can't really fault it for not lining up with sequels they didn't even know would exist when they made it.
Answer: Yes, he could have confessed his sins and asked for forgiveness. But Constantine is too stubborn to confess and doesn't feel the need to ask for forgiveness; he feels his service in the name of God should be enough. But that's buying your way into heaven.
lionhead