Question: The first Robocop 2 attempt managed to commit suicide by shooting himself at where I assume the brain was located. Wasn't this a major oversight in design that the cyborg wasn't made out of hard/thick enough metal so it wouldn't be possible to kill it with a single shot?
Questions about specific movies, TV shows and more
These are questions relating to specific titles. General questions for movies and TV shows are here. Members get e-mailed when any of their questions are answered.
Question: The two failed RoboCop 2s wound and perhaps killed a person. Weren't they programmed with the prime directives?
Answer: They were programmed with the prime directives but Alex Murphy was a special case. His strong moral fiber and dedication to his profession allowed him to remain sane and accept the directives. The failed specimens never accepted their programming.
Question: Hob (the kid) offers the governor of Detroit 50 million in exchange for his uninvolvement in their drug sales. Didn't the laboratory and their chemist perish in an explosion earlier? How are they planning on creating the drugs?
Answer: They are not going to keep just one lab for all the drugs they make, and they are not going to allow just one chemist to assist in the making of said drugs. Obviously they have others.
Question: After Frank rescues Fred from being euthanized at the animal shelter he takes two other cats with him. Why does he take the two other cats?
Answer: Because they were going to be euthanized. He wouldn't leave them to be killed.
Question: In the first timeline ending, Russell (Firefist) is not convinced or changed by Deadpool's pleading; in fact, he casts Deadpool aside. Cable then lunges for the semi-auto handgun and takes his last shot, which is intercepted by Deadpool in his left chest (a fatal wound). Seemingly, the only thing that really changed Russell's mind was Deadpool's actual death scene, as Deadpool rambled on with his farewells and gradually faded away. But, in the alternate ending, Cable goes back in time a few minutes and uses an arcade token to stop the bullet that killed Deadpool; thus, Deadpool doesn't die from the gunshot and Russell doesn't react to Deadpool's farewells (that never happened). So, what event changed Russell's mind the second time, if not Deadpool's actual death?
Answer: His change of heart came from Deadpool's sacrifice. In the second timeline, Cable saves Deadpool, but Deadpool had no way of knowing. Firefist still has a change of heart because Deadpool was willing to sacrifice himself, even though he was ultimately saved by someone else.
Now, I can accept that in theory, except that Russell repeatedly saw Deadpool putting his ass on the line to rescue Russell. I mean, Russell knew from the very beginning that Deadpool could have killed him (but chose not to) and took some severe ass-beatings on Russell's behalf. Russell was really, really hard-boiled, and I'm not seeing that Deadpool almost getting killed as enough impetus to change Russell's heart. It seems (to me, anyway) it was Deadpool's actual death that changed Russell, such that a mere deflected bullet would not have the same effect.
Deadpool often mentioned "lazy writing" and Russell having such a change of heart might be an example of it.
Deadpool saving Russell in the film is what made Russell think that they were friends. When Deadpool tells Russell that they aren't friends, he remains hostile toward Deadpool, not believing him when he later admits to caring for Russell. At this point Russell is too far gone and will kill. However, it's only when Deadpool takes a bullet for Russell, fully intending to die in both timelines, that Russell sees that Deadpool really does care about him, and would have died to save him.
Answer: In science fiction there are two different ideas regarding time travel. In one, the timeline is fixed, so a person who goes back in time does what already happened in their own past, like in The Time Traveler's Wife - however, this is where the grandfather paradox comes in. The other theory as express in the Back to the Future series is the past can be changed and in so doing change the future for the person who changed it. Deadpool 2 follows the second concept, so Firefist doesn't need any motivation to go back the second time and in fact doesn't go back a second time since the timeline is already corrected and that doesn't present a contradiction.
It presents the contradiction that Deadpool's actual death broke Firefist's cold heart the first time; but the second time Deadpool doesn't die, so Firefist should have no change of heart.
"Except that Russell repeatedly saw Deadpool putting his ass on the line to rescue Russell." Yes, but there's a huge difference between risking your life to save someone and directly sacrificing yourself. Doing something that could get you killed and doing something that will definitely get you killed are entirely different. You may not agree with the change of heart, but that's how it's presented.
Answer: The Firefist the second time around is the one from the first who jumped back in time retaining those memories, and therefore remembers the events from the first time, just like he remembers to place the token to stop the bullet and remembers that he used the device a second time. He doesn't need to experience the death twice to have the change of heart remain.
Question: Can someone enumerate to me who knew that Palpatine is Darth Sidious?
Answer: At the start of the movie the only people who knew are Dooku and others close to Palpatine. It's possible Grievous knew too, but we never get a confirmation. By the end of the movie all the remaining Jedi know, as well as Senator Organa and all the clone troops. The Senate doesn't.
It is said that in the film's official novelization, Grievous doesn't know Palpatine is Sidious.
Dooku, Maul, Maas Amedda, Sly Moore, Grand Moff Tarkin, and Ochi of Bestoon all knew.
Question: Why is Adam's arm bandaged?
Answer: That may be when he broke his hand on a bulletproof safety shield while filming.
Question: What happened to the dog Edie bought to make Trevor stay?
Answer: Trevor kept it with him when he left.
Question: Vader tortured Han to lure Luke into a trap because he knows Luke will sense they are in danger and will come try to rescue them since they are his friends. How did Vader know Han, Leia, and Chewbacca were Luke's friends?
Answer: Vader would be able to piece together information from the time Luke, Leia, Han, Chewbacca, and Ben Kenobi were on the Death Star in Episode IV. Luke was Ben's apprentice, Luke escaped with Princess Leia and Han, so it's logical Vader would make the connection that they are friends and allies. Spies would also be feeding him information.
Question: How can the plane take off from this country airport when they seem so worried about a short landing?
Answer: The plane would not be able to take off from that small airport.
Question: At the end of the film Blondie, sitting on the horse, turns around, aims his rifle, fires, and severs the rope with a single shot. Lets face it, that rope would be a very small target, and difficult to hit with precision, even from ten or twenty feet, and Blondie is now so far from Tuco that he would no longer even be able to see the rope. Could anyone hit such a small target from such a distance with such incredible accuracy?
Answer: There's a show called "Hollywood Weapons: Fact or Fiction" which dealt with this exact question (s01e03). Blondie is roughly 200 yds away. In the show the host didn't hit the rope, but only missed by an inch on his first attempt. I definitely think an expert Sharps Rifle shooter could make the shot. The issue however, is the bullet would most likely not actually slice the rope apart as seen in the film (they fired the Sharps at point blank and the rope remained partially intact still). They also tested shooting a hat off someone and (as expected) the bullet just goes right through the hat without lifting the hat at all.
That was another thing that puzzled me. On several occasions in this film, Tuco is suspended from a rope, and Blondie cuts the rope by firing a bullet at it, (I think Clint Eastwood repeated the trick in "The Outlaw Josey Wales"). But if you fired a bullet at a rope holding a (rather large) person like Tuco (or a similarly heavy weight), even at close range, would it really sever the rope? I will have to look out for "Hollywood Weapons Fact Or Fiction." I hope they only used a dummy or a model to re-create the shooting feats. I don't think I would have liked to have been hanging on a rope while somebody fired bullets at me to see if this would sever the rope, or to stand there while they fired bullets into my hat to see if they could lift it off my head.
Answer: Probably not, but remember...this is a movie, a western at that and they typically have over the top action to excite audiences. Kinda like how its impossible to shoot someone's hat off without harming them. It's all for show.
Question: It is implied that Satan and the forces of evil are always watching out for Damien so that when anybody gets anywhere near to hurting him they invariably meet a very sticky end. So how is it that, at the end of the film, Kate Reynolds is able to stab Damien to death with such apparent ease when all previous efforts to kill him have failed so dismally?
Answer: Damien states at one point that as the birth of the Nazarene gets closer, his strength fades accordingly. Presumably this also applies to any forces assisting him.
Question: Something that puzzles me about the thee Omen films taken together. In the first film of the series the very young Damien is taken into a church. As the son of the Devil he has a great aversion to all things Christian, so he has a huge tantrum, and screams, struggles and resists going into the building. So how is it, that, as the series progresses, he can enter Christian buildings without any ill effects? (The denouement of the third and final Omen film is set in Fountains Abbey, a venerated Christian church in Yorkshire).
Answer: It may be similar to myths around vampires. In many variations, their fear of crucifixes is purely psychological. As a child, Damian may have feared the symbolism of the church, but as he grew he realised it had no actual power over him.
Answer: There's no clear-cut answer. The first film was intended as a stand-alone movie. When the later sequels were made, the plot details were changed or otherwise adapted to fit a new story line.
Question: At the end, Orson Welles is wounded and flees up a ladder out onto the face of the church clock. The clock contains an automata of statues that move in front of the clock face. One statue holds a sword which impales Orson Welles. We have a distance shot in which the sword is sticking out of Orson Welles' back. Orson Welles presses against the statue to withdraw the sword and falls to his death. Is such an end feasible? Surely, for a sword to fully pierce a human body it would have to be very sharp and be driven with incredible force and speed. Would the statue be moving with anything remotely approaching such force and speed? And surely a statue on a clock would not carry a real sword, but a facsimile, meant to look like a weapon from a distance? And, if somebody was pierced completely through with a sword, could they press their body forward to fully withdraw the weapon? (01:34:45)
Answer: This is a fictional death, and it's unlikely a person could be killed in that manner. The sword might cause a severe wound, but it would take some force to completely impale a body that way. Movies often exaggerate reality to create drama.
Question: In this version the Phantom was a highly gifted composer, who, as a grown adult, was horribly disfigured in an accident. Much of the Hammer version centres on the performance of the Phantom's masterpiece, an opera about Joan Of Arc, segments of which are shown during the film. I am not an expert on opera, but it seemed to me that the Phantom's musical take on the Joan Of Arc legend was one of the dullest musical performances I have ever seen, consisting of perfectly ordinary (and uninspiring) dialogue, sung on a single (and rather monotonous) octave. (Imagine some people who can't sing very well singing the text of a second rate historical novel.) Did anybody else who saw this little known film of the classic horror story have any opinion on the Joan Of Arc opera?
Answer: This is a British low-budget version of the classic book. Due to its financial restraints, there was less concern about producing a factual or high-quality fictional opera. It is only a backdrop to the story.
Question: Why did the writers decide to have Snoke killed just like that? Fans have spent the last two years wondering about so many theories about who he is, so was it really wise to kill him that early on without even the slightest hint as to who he really is?
Answer: According to reports, JJ Abrams had different ideas for each characters' story arcs while he was directing "The Force Awakens"; when Rian Johnson signed on as director for "Last Jedi", he basically decided to ignore Abrams' ideas and create his own direction for every major character, including Snoke. Since there is still one more film left in the current trilogy, though, we may learn more about Snoke's true nature in Episode IX; the possibility also exists that he may return as a Force ghost or in a cloned body, at least according to fan theories.
Answer: I know this caused quite the uproar with a lot of the fans, but looking back at the original trilogy, how much information was known about Emperor Palpatine when he was killed off? None of this was addressed until the prequel trilogy many years later.
Exactly. I have made this same argument so many times. Back when the original trilogy came out, none of us were running around complaining that we never found out the Emperor's backstory.
I was merely asking why they decided to kill off Snoke this early.
To be more to the point of your question, it seems that Rian Johnson believed (in my opinion, correctly) that the Snoke character added very little to the story and his death would be shocking to the audience. As a virtual copy of Palpatine in almost every way, the audience expected Snoke to fill a similar role in this story and last well into the third film. By killing Snoke so early, you get rid of a pretty useless character and also shock your audience, leaving them with no idea what direction the story will take going forward.
Question: Why was Beatrix so shocked to hear Elle killed Pai Mei?
Answer: When Beatrix trained with Pai Mei we see that if you listen to him and respect him then he has a lot to teach. She wasn't so much shocked that Elle killed him...she is shocked at the lack of respect Elle showed in killing him.
Question: During the movie when a viewer can make decisions, I chose to honk the horn twice which saved Frankie's life. Later in the film, Frankie is being arrested by two officers. The scene pauses and a question appears asking if it was right to save his life. I chose "yes" and because of this he is seen being taken away. If I had chosen "no", what would have happened to Frankie?
Answer: The movie just continues without showing any additional clips.
Answer: In the choose their fate version, it shows clips from Frankie's camera diary.
Question: Gulliver's attempt at avoiding a fight with the Blefuscian at sea sea fails. He've been surrounded and shot at. He grabs at the ropes coming from each ship's bow and drags them away. Now, why were there ropes coming from each of the ships and how did they end up infront of them so that he could grab onto them?
Answer: Obviously, it's just a deliberate error in a fantasy film that is full of plot-holes and errors. They certainly aren't anchor lines, as the ships are actively involved in a military engagement (surrounding Gulliver). Also, no navy flotilla of sailing ships would have lines hanging loose at the bow or stern, particularly going into a military engagement. Rather, the lines would be coiled and neatly stowed on deck. In this case, the deliberate error permits Gulliver to tow away the Blefuscudian ships in just a matter of moments (even though Blefuscu is over a half-mile away by water).
Question: I noticed that the island they crashed on was "Mata nui." It sounded familiar to me, and Google told me Mata Nui was a Lego Bionicle figure. Since the movie is from 1998 and Bionicle from 2001, Lego must have been inspired by the movie, or what?
Answer: Motu Nui is a real life island, the name means "large island" in Maori. Most likely that is the source of Lego's inspiration for the name. While it is certainly possible that whoever came up with Mata Nui first heard the name Motu Nui in this movie, it is unlikely. Motu Nui is a fairly well known island and also shares its name with a settlement in New Zealand. A fictionalized island called Motu Nui is also the home of Disney princess Moana, which obviously came out after Bionicle but speaks to how well known the name is.
Answer: Thank you. I must have misheard the name in the movie! I will Google Motu Nui now.
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 became apparent that the original Robocop was an extremely lucky one-off success, as the second-generation Robocop experiments were thwarted by incompatibilities that drove the human subjects quite mad. The second-generation Robocop experiments were, thus, probably not outfitted with bulletproof armor in the test stages, just in case they went crazy and had to be put down.
Charles Austin Miller