Question: If the Terminator had succeeded in killing Sarah and effectively wiping out John Conner, then that would mean the machines would win and even kill off mankind. So after Skynet's mission was complete and all humans are dead, what would the machines do now that with no more humans left to kill?
lionhead
9th Jan 2019
The Terminator (1984)
22nd Mar 2018
Jurassic Park (1993)
Corrected entry: Why aren't there subwayesque service tunnels all round the island to permit the staff to travel hidden from the dinosaurs/sundry other emergencies/all the other incidental occurrences that make every other undertaking on our planet use similar tunnels? Expensive and laborious, but if you have the resources to make dinosaurs, everything else is a breeze.
Correction: Despite Hammond's catchphrase of "We spared no expense", that would have been a huge expense, as underground tunnels suitable for travel are extremely costly. Also remember that Isla Nublar is a volcanic island. The ground may simply not be suitable for that kind of construction.
Correction: Given that "Jurassic Park" was author Michael Crichton's re-imagining of his own film "Westworld" (in which a high-tech amusement park goes haywire and the guests must run for their lives), the whole point of the movie was to place humans and dinosaurs on the same deadly-dangerous playing field. Like "Westworld," this movie was a purely visual film (a graphic novel, basically) that smoothed-over lapses of logic in favor of frantic spectacle. If John Hammond had the foresight to make his Jurassic Park a hermetically-sealed, perfectly-safe environment for humans to observe and maintain dinosaurs, it would have eliminated the thrill of the movie, turning it into a National Geographic documentary.
But the point is the park was safe, without Nedry's sabotage things would have worked perfectly. Hammond spared no expense and it shows with the fancy security. Because of this Nedry's sabotage was put in.
The fact that Jurassic Park could be sabotaged by a computer geek is proof that it was not perfectly safe. A perfectly-safe facility would be foolproof and sabotage-proof.
Any place can be sabotaged, the point is that it was safe enough to receive visitors, without the sabotage the inspection would have gone smoothly. Adding tunnels or even more security wouldn't change a thing. You are just making stuff up.
Correction: They didn't think about it. They didn't need to because they felt they had the place pretty well secured. Besides it wouldn't have helped them much anyway, once the fences were down the predators could get anywhere and a lot of the predators are small enough to get inside the tunnels, the velociraptors could even open doors. Most personnel was already gone so there is no lacking in their infrastructure that would require tunnels. This could have helped Dennis Nedry escape as well. He shut the park down to create chaos and move unseen.
28th Feb 2005
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Question: How does old Biff know how to operate the time machine?
Answer: Old-Biff first comments on the flying DeLorean "I have not seen one of those in 30 years", then he sees what he believes to be two McFly Jr.'s and gets even more suspicious, next he spies on Doc and Marty having an argument about the almanach and how Doc is opposed to time travelling for personal gain! What else does he need to know? And lastly: We're talking about a time machine here! Old-Biff could have stolen it, kept it for how ever long it took him to figure out how it works and returned it at leisure. We don't even have any proof for the days he picked to departed from 2015 or to arrive in 1955. The only verified date is his return from Nov 12 1955 06:38 pm.
Chosen answer: He doesn't, but it's hardly difficult to work out - the date setting readout is pretty obvious. Biff presumably set the date, then just accelerated the car until the time circuits kicked in.
Answer: It's a plot hole. Biff couldn't have known or suspected the DeLorean's time-travel procedure, which necessarily included Biff setting the precise 1955 destination with no previous instruction. Biff just suddenly "knew" how to operate a time machine. He also changed the timeline by going back to 1955, so there's no way he could have returned to the "normal" 2015. But he does.
It's not totally impossible that Biff knew how to the time dial worked. He wasn't suspecting what it was, he knew it was a time travel machine and thus knew what the dial was for and possibly being technically educated knew how to use the time dial.
We know from the first movie that Biff, by age 48, was waxing cars for a living in 1985. He hardly had a "technical education" and it's doubtful he acquired a technical education by age 78 in the year 2015. It was established in the first movie that he had become a timid underachiever.
Alright I agree, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. But he has lived for 78 years by then, till 2015. Even though he has no clue on how the flux capacitor works, he doesn't need to, all he needs to do is work the time circuits, a simple keypad system which even shows which display shows which time. For someone from 2015, it's not so hard to figure out.
Answer: He could have taken however long he wanted to figure it out, as long as he returned it to the exact time he took it from. We don't actually see him time travel with it when he takes it, so, for all we know, he could have taken it to his house and taken the few hours/days he needed to figure out how to use it.
4th Jan 2019
The Mummy (1999)
Question: In the scenes where Rick lights a match to use on a stick of dynamite, he does so by striking the match against either his own ear or the ear of Ardeth Bay. Is there an explanation to how he does this?
Answer: He's lighting the match on his beard-stubble by raking it down his face. He's not striking the matches on his ear. It's not practical at all (and in fact, it's basically impossible unless you have beard-stubble like sandpaper), but it's just a cute way for the movie to show how much of a bad-a** he is. In reality behind the scenes, they actually had a strip of matchbox taped to the actor's faces that they were striking the matches on to light them. But with the right camera placement, it looks like they're lighting them on their faces.
Answer: Matches in those days were friction matches, with added red phosphorous so you could light them on basically any surface, as long as you generated enough heat. Some prefer the bottom of their boots, or a wall, but others light them on their own body, or someone else's.
Bare skin does not provide the necessary friction to light a match. It's possible to light one using one's fingernail by flicking it hard against the match head, but not with skin. There has to be a hard textured surface to create a spark.
Rough stubble?
Those matches are known as 'strike anywhere matches', because of the phosphorous coating on the matchhead they can be used on any suitably frictional surface. That's why Rick used Ardeth's stubble beard to strike the matchhead against.
Answer: I don't think he was rubbing the match on bare skin, more likely the edge of where the beard grows. The rough hairs would make the area of skin able to produce enough friction to light the match as long as it was rubbed fast enough.
21st Oct 2003
The Mummy (1999)
Other mistake: Evie explains that if Imotep was resurrected he'd bring with him the ten plagues of Egypt. This is followed by (in no particular order) a plague of Locusts, Flies, Water running to blood, the sun being eclipsed and a plague of boils. At the plague of boils Jonathan says 'last but not least, my favourite plague - boils and sores'. How does he know this is the last plague? Aren't there supposed to be 5 more? (01:23:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This may be taking the dialog too literally. It may be foreshadowing, in the sense of "uh, oh, they've got us now" or Jonathan may simply be expressing the fact that he's had enough plagues now and would like it to stop please. By the way, you forgot the fire raining from the sky, so technically Imhotep did six, not five.
The fact that Evie stated specifically 10 plagues, it makes no sense for Jonathan to say "last" on the 6th one, without considering it a mistake on the parts of writers, actor, or director.
Jonathan doesn't simply say "last", but rather "last but not least" - a statement that is regularly used on things the speaker knows for a fact to be, in fact, not the actual last. Taken as a sarcastic remark it makes perfect sense in the situation.
I know he said more than just "last", but that was the keyword to point out that the mistake is in fact valid. "Last but not least", weather said sarcastically or not, is never meant to be said about something that is in fact not last. It's always said to indicate the last item is not necessary the least, such as at Christmas when the last gift remains or when the last graduating student is given his or her diploma.
Also it's a possibility that off screen there was death of livestock, lice, raining frogs and death of first born children. Just want to show which we missing and it's obvious why, as in a movie raining frogs or dying livestock isn't all that threatening to the main characters and doesn't look cool. And for the movie showing first born children die is just stupid. And lice, that's just too much like flies.
29th Dec 2018
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Question: Why was Merry's hand burned when he stabbed the back of the witch king's leg?
That's caused by his breath and I don't think he breathes from his leg.
How was Merry even able to stab the witch king's leg anyway? It's been said that no man can kill the witch king.
Going back to the books for more explanation: First: it wasn't a protection. It was a prophecy/prediction by Glorfindel a millennium earlier. Second: the weapon Merry had in the books was a barrow-blade recovered by Tom Bombadil while saving the Hobbits from the barrow wights and had been enchanted directly against the Witch King. Since the scene (and Tom) were not in the film, they went with a more specific interpretation. The Witch King was not killed by a man, but by a Hobbit and a woman.
Answer: Because of what the Witch King is made of, his blood (or whatever) burns the skin of a mortal. Maybe even being too close will cause burns.
27th Dec 2018
Common mistakes
Stupidity: Ground troops armed with semi-auto handguns, automatic rifles and even heavy artillery just keep wasting ammo, barrage-after-barrage, magazine-after-magazine, against giant robots and monsters 100 feet tall, long after it becomes obvious that the weapons have zero effect. This is an ongoing stupidity dating back to some of the earliest giant monster movies, and is still seen in giant monster and superhero films today.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Surely in the face of a no-win scenario, doing something that may or may not work is better than doing nothing and awaiting your doom. They would be doing everything they could to stop the enemy in the hopes of saving lives. Even if it takes every last round of ammunition, it may eventually be enough to wear down the monster / robot etc.
I hate to disagree. I think one of the best examples is the latest Godzilla movie where they keep firing their hand guns on it knowing it would be better to just get out, there was absolutely no point to do that. Same goes for Man Of Steel.
In everything from old Godzilla movies to modern superhero and kaiju flicks, we see military forces line up and throw every bit of small arms and heavier artillery they have at the giant monsters or giant robots, with zero effect. The military always retreats, regroups, then lines up and wastes all their ammunition again, as if they learned absolutely nothing from the first experience.
In a no-win scenario, you beat a hasty retreat and live to fight another day, hopefully better armed and better prepared next time. You don't hold your ground, futilely trying to bring down a giant monster the size of a Hilton Hotel with small arms fire.
It's strange because I can understand why filmmakers still do this, even though it makes little sense. They are trying to show that the monster, robot, whatever is unstoppable by conventional means and honestly I don't know how you would do that without these kinds of scenes. Even though they are dumb. It's extra dumb to me when you hear the General yell "Stand your ground, men!" or something like that. Or when the cop runs out of bullets and throws his gun.
I've seen too many scenes where they keep shooting, apparently to no avail, BUT there is always the chance that hitting the "monster" in a certain spot could get it to retreat. Instead of just continuing to rapidly fire with the general intent of hitting the monster, it would make much more sense to focus on a possible soft spot, such as an eye. The "just keep firing" mentality does fall under "stupidity." The military should be using a strategy that is rational, and emptying machine guns isn't.
18th Jul 2004
The Butterfly Effect (2004)
Plot hole: When Evan is in jail with the religious prisoner trying to get him to help him get his journals back he goes to the scene where he is drawing that homicidal picture in kindergarten, but he gets up and puts the spikes that holds documents through his hands, creating a stigmata-style scar. The religious guy in the cell with him is so amazed because of this he thinks Evan is a prophet and he decides to help him. If Evan had gone back in time and got those scars on his hands, he would have changed the original timeline and would have arrived in jail with those scars the whole time. Some people try to correct this using the "If I can create scars, then can I fix them?" statement Evan made to defend the mistake and suggest he can create instant scars but he was using the word "scars" to refer to the negative events; not literal scars on his body. The scar he got when he burned himself in the past didn’t magically appear on him the moment he returned from the past; it became part of a new, slightly altered timeline (just like the scars on his hands should have been) and it let him know he can change history.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't necessarily a correction so much as a possible explanation. It's possible that the religious inmate (I think his name was Carlos) just simply didn't see the scars on Evan's hands when he first came to the prison in the timeline where he got the scars or Evan knew to hide them in the scar timeline (due to the fact that it was the sole purpose of him going back) and due to his fanaticism he didn't question him a second time.
Nope, after jamming those things in his hands Evan simply came into the prison with the scars already on his hands and would have never thought of showing the religious guy his powers using that particular moment in the past to convince him, or doing what he did a second time as he already had done it. It doesn't matter if the religious guy didn't see them before, they won't be the object of Evan convincing him. He would have had to try it some other way, each and ever time. That how this time travel works and its definitely a plot hole that it worked as it did, whilst it shouldn't have. Of course, it's a time travel movie and they never make sense.
20th Jun 2017
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Question: Multi-part question regarding the actual brawl between Batman and Superman. Batman's first barrier is a sonic attack (lifted right out of Marvel's "Incredible Hulk," which Superman defeats the same way the Hulk did: Ripping apart an iron plate and destroying the sonic emitters with the two halves of iron). Why was Superman bending over, holding his head, when we know he has super-selective hearing? Superman could instantly block out a sonic attack without even blinking. Batman's second barrier was comprised of a couple of machine-cannons; again, Superman ducks and covers until he realises the cannons do not affect him. Why would Superman attempt to shield himself from conventional firearms? Did he suspect they were Kryptonite rounds? If so, why even bother shielding himself? If Superman suspected that Batman was using Kryptonite-based weaponry, why would he even walk into that scenario? After Superman strolls through Batman's first two deterrents, Batman then uses a third barrier, a smoke bomb that can, apparently, block Superman's X-ray vision. What was in the smoke? Was it lead-based smoke? Because Batman escapes while Superman seemingly can't see through the smoke. As far as I can tell, Superman doesn't realise that Batman is using Kryptonite-based weapons until Batman uses the Kryptonite gas mortars on Superman. So, why did the first three weapons even slow Superman down? Superman could have defeated Batman in a fraction of a second without killing him.
Chosen answer: The sonic emitters were constantly changing frequency making the sound impossible for Superman to "select" and block out. As for the cannons, Superman knows that Batman is resourceful and therefore assumed that he would not bother firing at him unless the rounds could do damage. Superman took cover as a precaution against this. There are also several elements which block x-rays and can be made into a gas.
Answer: We see Bruce working with lead to contain the Kryptonite gas in the grenade capsules, so we know he understands the interaction of lead and radiation. X-ray's are a form of radiation and if Luthor has a complete file in Superman's abilities the fact that he can see in the X-ray spectrum would be included, so Bruce would have planned accordingly but adding lead particles to his gas grenade should he need to escape. This is not covered in specific in the film; it requires you to add up several incidental pieces of information and make and informed assumption.
Answer: The bullets from the machine gun may not be able to break his skin and injure him but that doesn't mean they don't have a physical effect on him or that he cannot feel them. In Man of Steel Clark takes a 50cal round while trying to fly out of the military's line of fire and it throws him into a building. The bullets might not injure him but he can still feel them and they still hit pretty hard, so I imagine he's just trying not to get shot in the eyes.
Regular bullets do not have any effect on Superman's body whatsoever as long as he has absorbed solar rays before. Anyone that suggests they do knows nothing about Superman. Superman can survive a megaton nuclear explosion without so much as a hair on his body harmed, as long as he has absorbed enough solar rays.
In the comics, yes. In the movies is completely different.
Not at all. Someone fires a gun right on his face and it bounces off his eye without a blink.
Answer: First you have to understand that Superman doesn't know what Kryptonite is. He's never seen it, never heard of it, never encountered it. So he isn't expecting anything like it. He cannot prepare for or even look for something he does not know exists. Superman says in Man of Steel that he can focus on what he wants to hear above other sounds but that doesn't mean that he doesn't hear anything else; it just means he's able to manage the influx of information. You can hold a conversation with a friend at a nightclub but that doesn't mean you stop hearing everything else - you just don't focus on it. The sonic devices are very loud, focused directly at Superman's head and emitting frequencies up and down the spectrum not to mention the actual physical effect as evidenced by the rainwater caught in the blast. It's a lot to deal with all at once.
6th Jan 2016
Man of Steel (2013)
Question: During the tornado scene, Jonathan Kent rescues the dog, Hank, and in the process injures his leg. With the tornado practically on top of him, Jonathan then waves off Clark, who is only about 50 yards away. The fact that Jonathan waves off Clark is proof that they BOTH knew Clark could rescue his dad, but Jonathan didn't want Clark to expose his super powers. Still, it was Clark's DAD in danger. Why didn't Clark simply go rescue his father at super speed? Certainly, the chaos of the tornado would easily cover Clark's actions, and there would be no reliable witnesses in the midst of such confusion.
Answer: That, AND the fact that his dad is able to stand firmly on the ground whilst the tornado engulfs him, and we still see him standing to the very end as the debris in the tornado starts to hit him. That didn't make sense to me...correct me if I'm wrong, but tornadoes can and do pick up large objects like vehicles etc. and then toss them away WITHOUT the physical funnel of the tornado actually having passed over said objects. I thought once you're in the debris field, which is a separate thing from the funnel, you're already liable to be tossed up into the air and then flung out, but here, Jonathan remains standing on the ground unaffected the whole time, while the vehicle, being heavier than a human, had begun to float up in the air earlier when he went to get the dog, and then he remains standing even while the physical funnel begins to consume him - he should've been tossed up in the air long ago when the funnel was already within hundreds of feet of proximity to Jonathan.
It's certainly unrealistic but it was obviously an artistic choice. The fact that he is peacefully consumed by the funnel rather that violently tossed through the air was meant to be a poignant moment.
Answer: While I could think of several different scenarios that Clark could have done to save his dad without his abilities/powers being seen (that don't involve him moving so fast no-one sees him), ultimately (as Clark said), he let his dad die because he trusted him. "My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they'd reject me... out of fear. I let my father die because I trusted him. Because he was convinced that I had to wait. That the world was not ready."
Answer: At not point in either Man of Steel or Batman v Superman do we see Superman use speed of the type people have suggested while on the ground. The movie makes a point of outlining his abilities and some of their limits. For Clark to use that ability in that instance and nowhere else in the film would be inconsistent, so the conclusion must be that this version of the character does not have the ability to move in that manner. He might be fast-er than normal people, but not, "blink and you'll miss him fast" - otherwise it would always be an option for him throughout the film and it is not presented as such.
We know from Man of Steel that Clark is entirely capable of high-speed feats: He leaps from a crabbing boat at sea and swims to a burning oil rig easily 4 nautical miles away in a matter of not minutes but moments; and, in the logging-truck scene, Clark apparently wadded up a tractor-trailer so swiftly that nobody inside the bar, just a few yards away, heard a sound or felt an impact tremor. These were certainly acts of super speed; and Jonathan Kent certainly knew Clark could save him from the tornado, which is why he waved him off.
Next to that we see the same Superman in Justice League move at the same speed as Flash whilst on the ground.
Chosen answer: There were multiple witnesses under the bridge who may not have seen Clark, but would have seen Jonathan magically vanish and suddenly appear safe and sound a distance away.
8th Dec 2018
Toy Story (1995)
Question: Why do the toys not want people to know they're alive?
Answer: Because they are supposed to play out the part of a toy, that's their purpose. They want to be there for a child as a toy.
Ok, but what are they afraid might happen if people knew they were alive?
I don't really know how you want to look at this but if you look at it realistically I think it's quite obvious what they are afraid of. If it became publicly know that every toy ever made, including all teddy bears, remotely controlled cars and even etch-a-sketches are sentient, then you could probably expect a reaction comparable to that of Sid. Fear and panic.
Also, wouldn't toys risk being experimented on, imprisoned, or destroyed if they revealed to humans that they were alive?
Exactly what happened to Sid. He found out and freaked out.
Answer: They're not necessarily afraid, it's just part of being a toy. Woody even mentions "breaking rules" when they move in front of Sid. They may just accept that it's something they're not supposed to do.
But they did reveal themselves to animals like Scud and Buster though.
How are dogs going to tell anyone? Besides, they don't care since they are animals.
Answer: I think it's safe to assume that, unless a toy makes a conscious decision to reveal their true nature, they automatically default to inanimate toy mode. Otherwise, Buzz would have easily revealed himself within the first hour after Andy got him. With that in mind, since it's apparently something they have to work to do, I would propose that it's not that they have a reason not to want anyone to know their true nature, but that they have to have a real reason to reveal it in order to do so, like Woody had to save Buzz.
But Buzz could just as easily make the conscious decision to move whilst Andy was there, he thought he was the real Buzz lightyear after all, and not a toy. Then again, in the plot it's kinda stupid Buzz doesn't think he's a toy even though Andy plays with him. But if Woody can move whilst a human is in the room, then any toy can do that. Therefore, it's a decision not to do so. Buzz most likely got asked by the other toys to play the part and he obliged since he needed them till his ship was fixed, but still.
I said it appears they have to make a conscious decision to reveal their nature. Buzz not knowing his true nature makes that kind of impossible for him so he reverts to toy mode when Andy's around. Probably without even being aware of it.
That's a possibility. But then the question arises how the other toys became self-aware and why they are self-aware in the first place. It appears this is the first time they meet a toy that doesn't know he's a toy. On one side you have toys that are aware they are a toy and want to play by its rules and on the other hand you havee toys that don't believe they are one but magically never reveal their sentience.
Who said this was the first time this has happened? For all we know, Woody could've thought he was a real cowboy before realizing he's a toy. We just don't see his or any of the other toys' backstories.
Yet Buzz could also believe he's on a secret mission from Star Command, hence why he freezes. He didn't even believe he was a real toy at this point. Not a plot hole and not confusing. Also, toys can somehow "sense" when people are nearby and only move if either A), there's no people around or B), nobody's looking. Notice how all the toys go back to "toy form" any time this happens? They're very careful, not stupid.
Also a possibility, sure. Just to be clear; I'm not against the idea and thought process behind the plot. It's just a animated movie for kids. I just like to argue.
Answer: I questioned this to myself; even at Pizza Planet, before Buzz learns he's a toy, he gets picked up by Sid in the claw machine and turns back into an inanimate object which means by some sort of unconscious decision he becomes a toy again.
8th Dec 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Corrected entry: When Black Widow, Captain America and Black Panther approach Proxima Midnight at the Wakanda barrier, Black Widow asks: "Where is the other friend?" and Proxima answers: "You will pay for his life with yours." We assume Corvus Glaive died. However, a few minutes later he appears trying to steal Vision's stone. Even if he didn't die, it doesn't make sense because he was seriously injured by Black Widow a few hours before.
Correction: She was bluffing about him being dead so that they wouldn't suspect he was already in the same room as Vision, lying in wait for Wanda to join the battle.
Next to that he is an alien, probably a dark elf and we have no idea how badly injured he actually was, and also could have been healed.
The staff he holds grants him the power of immortality. Once he dies or is injured while he holds that staff he can come back from anything. He was fatally stabbed while the staff was in his hand in the station, but the last scene where he was stabbed by Vision, he obviously didn't have the staff in his hand because he was stabbed by it. The power the staff holds is the difference.
Correction: Proxima Midnight implied that Corvus Glaive had died so that he could successfully infiltrate Wakanda and get Vision's stone. He also has the ability to survive almost any injury as long as his glaive is undamaged, so his earlier injury is irrelevant to his ability to show up in Wakanda.
Correction: Misdirection. Black Widow thought he was dead, therefore she wouldn't be expecting him to show up again. Proxima just lied, no mistake.
22nd Jan 2005
I, Robot (2004)
Question: Does anyone know what year Dr. Lanning (the character) was born in? It tells you when Spooner is in the cafe on the TV, but I just can't make it out.
Answer: 1971.
Answer: The TV shows 1971-2035 not 1921-2035.
Yep, if you watch it in HD it's clear as day.
Answer: According to the TV in the bar he lived from 1921 to 2035.
21st Oct 2018
Venom (2018)
Question: What became of the little girl after Riot left her body?
Answer: Like all other temporary hosts, she died. This was first seen when Riot took over the EMT and when he left her after finding a new temp host, the EMT died.
It depends on how long they are inside the host though, as Venom took over Annie as well but she survived. It depends on how much they feed on their host. In the case of the girl he was inside her for several hours or more so she most likely died.
A host can only survive if they are a genetic match to the symbiote that is bonded to them. If they aren't they'll leave the host and the host will die as shown with the three hosts that Riot took control of then left. Plus, as it seen in the movie if the symbiote can find some other form of food, it won't feed on the host at all.
If that's the case then Annie should have died as well or she just happened to be a genetic match as well.
Since Ann lived, this would mean she is also a genetic match.
That seems way too much of a coincidence.
It's not a coincidence. Dora Skirth explained to Carlton Drake that symbiosis falls along the same lines as an organ transplant. The only way for a host (recipient) to survive is if the symbiote (organ) is a match. This explains why so many of Riot's previous hosts died but Carlton survived.
That actually makes it a coincidence.
29th Dec 2015
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)
Corrected entry: When Finn pulls Poe to the side of the corridor to tell Poe he's rescuing him, Finn's face changes from sweaty to dry and back again in three successive shots.
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.
22nd Dec 2005
The Lion King (1994)
Question: After Mufasa's death, how does Simba get it into his head that it's his fault? If anything, it would've seemed to be Scar's, because he was the one that told Simba to wait on the rock. Can someone please explain this to me?
Answer: Simba sees the stones on the ground skitter - a sign of the impending stampede - immediately after his roar echoes around the gorge. This was very good timing on Scar's part. Simba believed that his roar had startled the wildebeest into stampeding. (Of course, Scar was the one who goaded him into practising roaring in a gorge in the first place, but it's easy to forget these things in the traumatic aftermath of your father's death). Moreover, Simba was a child. Scar was an adult he trusted, and actually told Simba it was his fault.
I think it was more to the fact that his dad died whilst trying to rescue him. If he didn't need rescuing, his dad would still be alive. Thats why he thought it was his fault.
30th Oct 2018
Beetlejuice (1988)
Question: Is there any reason besides plot convenience that the Deetzes didn't enter the attic during the three months that the Maitlands were away from the house to meet with Juno? I realise they don't have the key, but seeing as how they were renovating the entire house anyway, it seems like they would have had no problem just knocking the door down.
Answer: No reason was given, but they probably felt no immediate need to enter the attic. I've never been in my own house's attic. As you pointed out, it's really a matter of plot convenience.
Answer: After the dinner scene when Otho asked where they hid and Lydia said "the attic" Charles replied that the attic was locked. So it seems like she never told them she had the skeleton key.
I addressed this in the question. A key is not required to get into the attic because they could just break the door down.
Except they didn't break the door down. Delia kept banging on the door until it opened. If they had broken the door down, there would have been some damage.
Answer: This is purely for convenience. It's always bothered me. Like since the early 90s when I first had a VHS copy to rewind. That whole house has been gutted and rebuilt but no-one got in to the attic for 3 months? That's BS. For one thing not only would someone like Charles Deets want to see every square inch of his property, but a major company/contractor doing a remodel of that size would have at some time needed access to and been on every square foot of that house.
Quite often, people don't think about the attic along with the rest of the house. Many of them won't be going into the attic every day, not every month, maybe not more than once a year.
29th Oct 2018
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Question: Why didn't they just cast Avada Kedavra on the Horcruxes and then disapparate before the ministry could find them as I think they can detect the unforgivable curses being used?
Answer: The avada kedavra curse did not work on the horcruxes while there was more than one in existence. That was why baby Harry survived Voldemort's attempt to kill him using that curse, and why Voldemort could not be killed until all the other horcruxes were destroyed. The horcruxes could only be destroyed by a few methods, such as with basilisk venom or fiendfyre. The horcrux inside Harry was later killed by Voldemort using avada kedavra, but that seems to be because the other horcruxes had already been destroyed. Voldemort never knew that Harry carried a horcrux inside him.
Actually Harry survived Voldemort's attempt to kill him because of the love of his mother and her sacrifice. Voldemort's killing curse rebounded upon that love spell and caused a piece of his soul (already shattered from killing Harry's parents) to transfer to Harry. The reason Voldemort's killing curse worked to kill the horcrux inside Harry was because Harry was simply killed by the killing curse along with the horcrux and then the resurrection stone resurrected Harry, but not the horcrux.
That's true, his mother's love protected him. However, at the end, Harry wasn't dead-he was in-between life and death and he had the choice to either go back to the living world or "move on." He chose to return. The resurrection stone did not play a part in reviving him. There is still much confusion and debate over exactly when and how the horcrux inside Harry was destroyed.
He had the resurrection stone in his hand when he confronted Voldemort in the forest, that's why he had a choice, because of the stone. After resurrecting the stone was left behind.
That is incorrect. Harry is holding the Resurrection Stone while he is speaking to the spirits of his mother, father, Lupin, and Sirius. Just before he leaves them, he drops the stone, and it is seen falling from his hand to the ground in the forest "before" he goes to meet Voldemort. (In the book, the stone is left in the forest so that no-one will be able to use it.) The stone did not play any part in Harry being revived. You can watch the clip on YouTube.
Hm, yeah all right. But then he didn't actually use it, only to talk to deceased loved ones, which bothers me and when I'm bothered the ground quakes. I always thought its power worked on till the moment he got killed and then resurrected him.
The Resurrection Stone was only to bring back someone else from the dead, not one's own self. It had to be used by a living person who called for a dead person to return to the earth, though as Hermione read from the book (when the Trio was at the Lovegood house), the dead person was never really resurrected to a full living being again and did not understand the world they were brought back to.
29th Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Factual error: Often a person on the run will scale a fence quickly and get over it with little problem. And usually this fence has coils of razor wire or barbed wire at the top, and yet they show no sign of injury. This razor wire would cut you and your clothes to shreds. That's the whole point of it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't agree it's common to see people jump barbed wire fences without injuries. Its more common to actually show cuts and torn clothes, as that adds drama.
The problem with "common" mistakes is that they are supposed to be easy to recall. From the top of my head I can't think of a movie scene where someone jumped over a barbed wire fence and got off without injuries. How common is it really?
Have the same problem with the nuclear explosion one, can't think of any movie where people looked at a nuclear explosion without properly guarding their eyes.
I can see what you mean about the barbed wire fence then. I know I've seen it in several films and even CinemaSins has pointed it out a few times... but I can't recall specific titles. As far as the atomic explosions one... The Wolverine, Dark Night Rises, Sum of all Fears, Godzilla 2014 (There's even a dumbass watching the explosion through binoculars), The Crazies, and The Divide to name a few.
Alright for the nuclear explosion, although in some of the movies you gave an example it's simply not true (Dark Knight Rises, Sum of All Fears and Godzilla nobody is watching the flash, Godzilla is even historical footage), it does happen often. So I'll thumb it up.
In Dark Knight Rises, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's is standing on the bridge watching Batman fly away. He's staring out at the ocean and watches as the explosion goes off.
No, in the next scene you see he actually fully turned his head to cover his eyes. A group of people are seen ducking too but you don't know they can see the flash directly.
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: It's really impossible to answer definitively, considering the film-makers have never addressed this. The films never specify any purpose Skynet has outside of wanting to wipe out humanity. Skynet simply wants to "live", to exist as a sentient consciousness but views all of humanity as a threat to its existence. Since artificial intelligence is thus far only a fictional concept, we can't even really speculate based on information outside of the Terminator series. We can perhaps imagine a scenario wherein Skynet is successful and lives in peace as the only intelligence on Earth. The machines themselves do not have individuality and only exist for the purposes of killing humans so there doesn't seem to be a logical reason why they would exists if Skynet wins. However, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable way Skynet could ever be sure they have killed every single human on the planet so I can also imagine a scenario where the machines endlessly patrol the planet, making sure humanity never rises again. Also, and this is food for thought, the time travel scenario present in these films is a grandfather paradox. Skynet leads to it's own creation by sending back a Terminator to kill Sarah Connor. Similarly John Connor is conceived because a Terminator was sent back in time, which is the paradox. Skynet winning would create another paradox wherein Skynet could not exist because John Connor was never born so they had no enemy to fight, etc. This sort of stuff can make your head explode.
BaconIsMyBFF
Just to be clear, the first movie doesn't say that Skynet created itself by sending a terminator back, that's the second movie. Also John Connor never being born doesn't remove their enemy, humanity is their enemy, it would stop the resistance and prevent the humans from winning, presumably. It does create a paradox though, like all time travel movies do.
lionhead
The first movie deleted specific scenes which referenced the defeated Terminator being used to create Skynet. This of course was fully formed in the sequel. Technically since they are deleted scenes they may not belong in a discussion about the first movie but I was speaking generally with regards to the series as a whole. It's really only relevant to my point about the paradox which doesn't really have anything to do with the original question. Also, John Connor is specifically Skynet's enemy. Without him humanity would have been easily defeated. Technically, yes they want to wipe out all humanity but without John Connor they would have succeeded and there would be no need to send a terminator back in time, which of course is the entire point of the series. Both the humans and Skynet believe this to be true.
BaconIsMyBFF
John Connor is the key to the paradox, true. Since John was created by Skynet's own attempt to stop him it's impossible for them to win the war. All movies tell us (except the horrible, terrible last one called Genisys) that skynet can not win the war by time travel. I had a whole essay written down but I decided not to post it, since talking about paradoxes is a paradox and they are highly interactive. Catch my drift?
lionhead
Thinking about paradoxes in movies like these can drive you insane.
BaconIsMyBFF
Yeah, but it's so much fun.
lionhead
Agreed. I actually really love the paradox in the first Terminator. The idea that John gave Kyle a picture of his mother and Kyle fell in love with her because of that picture, and he always wondered what she was thinking about when the picture was taken, and it turns out she was thinking about how much she loved Kyle. Brilliant.
BaconIsMyBFF
Yeah, you know now I think about it, the first movie doesn't have a grandfather paradox at all, it's the exact opposite. They actually created a loop, the time travel made the resistance exist and skynet always will try to use time travel to destroy the resistance. The paradox, is the sequel, where they make us believe the time travel also made skynet, which is impossible and an actual grandfather paradox because skynet invented time travel (since in the second movie the time travelling terminator from the first movie became the "grandfather" of skynet basically). Maybe we should move this to the Forum though.
lionhead