Question: Did Christmas Eve used to be a regular work day? The bank is open, the bank examiner is at the building and loan, and Zuzu had school.
KeyZOid
19th Dec 2023
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Answer: Agree with the other answer, but would add that Christmas Eve was never a Federal holiday. It really depends on the individual company or organization on whether to give employees the day off. When I worked for the state, we used to get Christmas Eve off, but that was eliminated when MLK Day became a Federal holiday. Employees then had to use a vacation day if they wanted Christmas Eve off.
Answer: Yes, and it still is. The standard work day was 9:00 - 5:00, and Christmas Eve (not a "holiday") starts at 6:00 PM - after work. Christmas "breaks" may have been extended over the years, though.
5th Dec 2023
General questions
For a period of time starting in the mid-2000s, it became common for most major DVD releases to have both 1- and 2-disc editions. Typically, the 2-disc edition just had more bonus content and cost a few dollars more, while the 1-disc edition had less content and was cheaper. I never understood this. This was before streaming became huge, so it didn't incentivize buying the DVD, nor did the 2-disc edition cost much more, so it couldn't have had much impact on profit. So why was this even a thing?
Answer: OP here. From everything I've been able to find, it pretty much just looks like it was just a bit of a gimmick. Put some extra bonus content on a second disc, call it a "Special Edition" or "Collector's Edition" or "Limited Edition," and charge an extra $5 for it. People who wanted just the movie could buy the single disc for the standard price, and people who wanted more special features paid a slightly more expensive "premium price." And it would subtly boost profits.
I think you're right - the extra content largely existed already, there was no significant cost to produce it, and mastering a second version of the DVD wouldn't cost much in the grand scheme of things either, so any extra amount would have been pure profit. Showgirls (first example I found) apparently made $37m in cinemas and $100m in DVD sales. A couple of extra dollars per unit would add up. It might also serve as "anchoring" if that's the right term - having a more expensive 2 disc version makes the single disc version look like better value to the casual buyer (while also appealing more to the movie buff). There are certainly some films I splashed out on for the fancier version because I was a fan (and then of course never really watched the extras much!), but going back a while there was literally no other way to see this extra content unless you bought the special edition.
From the perspective of why they were simultaneously released (and with a relatively small difference in price), I'd agree. But this is different from why two-disc versions were released some time after the one-disc version (and with a substantial difference in price). That is, the reasons why this initially happened are different from why it continued to happen.
I was trying to refer to concurrent releases in my question. Unfortunately, the character limit meant I could not give any examples. I was referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Transformers." I used to go to the store at midnight to buy new DVD releases around the time those movies came out, and there would almost always be a single disc DVD with just the movie and a few features, and a 2-Disc set with more special features released on the same day. (A 2-disc special/anniversary edition being released a few years later for an older title makes sense, and is a different matter entirely. I'm referring to when multiple editions of the same new release were put out at the same time.)
Yes, I finally figured this out! You are asking about a specific time period and looking for a straightforward answer, without putting things in historical perspective (the developing technology and decreasing costs of mass-producing DVD movies). The extras (plus a little more) that used to be included on the standard editions were now on a second disc with the package costing about $5 more. It probably came down to "will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?"
It probably came down to 'will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?' "and unfortunately when I was a teenager, I was, hahahaha. But yeah, the more I look into it, the more it does just seem like a total gimmick. (I feel like a good modern comparison might be steelbooks... cool packaging, but usually sold for a very high markup even though it's the same exact discs.)
My "victimization" came much earlier. I had the standard release versions of movies and, later, when I started to see much more expensive two-disc versions, I thought, "Who would buy these now?" Well, I think I ended up buying 3 versions of "Terminator 2." [Why?]
Answer: From my experience, the 2-disc versions provided two different formats. Typically, the 1-disc version was Fullscreen and, depending on its release, did have additional content like commentaries and deleted scenes. The 2-disc version included a Widescreen version as well as extra materials, extended cuts, remastered versions, or special edition, etc. Later, when Blu-Ray came out, the 2-disc set usually included a standard DVD version. Some DVDs were sold as 2-sided without a lot of extra content but having a Fullscreen and Widescreen version.
This doesn't really answer the question. I'm not referring to those. I'm more so referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Super 8". Their DVDs only came in widescreen, but had two versions. A single-disc edition with just the movie and a few special features, and a 2-disc edition that had more special features. I'm curious as to WHY many titles had single and two-disc editions with the only difference being the amount of special features. It just seems more logical to release just the 2-disc edition. This answer basically just explains that 2-disc existed.
I apologise for misunderstanding the question, because what you described in my experience was atypical. And in my opinion, it makes sense to release two versions, but I'm afraid to answer why if I turn out to still not understand the question.
No problem. It's a very weird, specific question, hahaha. Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't even really an answer beyond just "they decided to try it for some reason."
Answer: Simply put MONEY.
Profits are almost always, if not always, a factor. The two-disc versions with "extras" might have been enough to get certain movie buffs to buy them, even though they already had the single-disc version - but I doubt very many people actually did so.
5th Dec 2023
Jurassic Park (1993)
Question: The second Nedry notices the Dilophosaurus in the jeep with him, why didn't he quickly get out and shut the door, trapping it inside? He had a second or two before the Dilophosaurus started growling and attacking him, plenty of time to get out.
Answer: There are some additional factors that would interfere with his ability to move quickly: He was obese (so not very agile) and his vision was impaired (he dropped his glasses and was sprayed with gunk in his eyes).
Answer: In addition to what RayWest and LionHead wrote, I would like to point out that it's easy to say what a person should have done. You're watching the situation as an outsider. Granted, this is a fantasy situation in a movie about dinosaurs, but the mentality is realistic: people who are actually in a situation don't always think of something that seems obvious.
Answer: The fact that Nedry was in a car could've been giving him a false sense of security. Yes, he could've gotten out of the car, but then he'd be out in the open, making it easier for him to get attacked by any other dinos that were lurking about. In the car, he probably (incorrectly) assumed that the Dilophosaurus would have restricted movement due to how small cars are, making it harder for it to attack.
16th Feb 2022
The Invisible Man (2020)
Question: Who was Cecilia before she met Adrian?
Answer: Wealthy Adrian controlled every aspect of Cecilia's life, so he most likely prohibited her from working - she was his stay-at-home "trophy wife." Cecilia asked "invisible" Adrian, "So why me? I'm just a suburban girl who stumbled into your life one night at a party... There's nothing left for you to take. You've already taken it all", which implies even preventing her from getting employment or starting a career. Cecilia did graduate from "Cal Poly Architecture", so she had skills/ability (evidenced by her portfolio of drawings), but she was stuck at the "aspiring architect" level. She told the job interviewer at "Ruler" architecture, "After Cal Poly, I worked in Paris for six months." That's the extent of her employment history - Adrian took over her life after that. There were no indications in the movie that Cecilia was employed when she finally left Adrian. It appears she just took the first step toward starting her career now that she had (or thought she had) her freedom back.
18th May 2023
The Invisible Man (2020)
Question: After faking his death, why would Adrian leave Cecilia with five million dollars?
Answer: Apart from having the money to do so and portraying himself as a loving and caring husband, it was another one of Adrian's mind games and way of "screwing with her" - if she committed a crime or became mentally impaired, she would lose the trust. Adrian already had a plan to make her "lose her mind" and commit violent acts with plenty of witnesses, such as slitting her sister's throat in a crowded restaurant.
Answer: So the police would believe she killed him for his money.
3rd Mar 2022
The Invisible Man (2020)
Question: Why are Cecilia and her sister Emily so distant?
Answer: From what I could see, it was never specified what caused their strained relationship. Many sisters just don't get along for a variety of reasons-jealousy, resentment, rivalry, personality clashes, etc. Of course, it serves the plot and is a common movie trope that Cecilia has little family support to help with her situation, adding to the suspense as she tries to escape Adrian on her own.
Answer: Controlling husbands like Adrian severely restrict who their wives can see and talk to, so Adrian most likely interfered with Cecilia maintaining a positive relationship with her sister. Cecilia's sister probably did not know how controlling and manipulative Adrian was, so assumed it was Cecilia who did not want to be close to her. Adrian made it appear as though it was Cecilia's choice, but it was actually the restrictions he placed on Cecilia that caused the strain between the sisters.
Answer: Because an email was sent from Cecilia but really from Adrian (the invisible man) saying that her sister was suffocating her. And that Cecilia didn't want to see her anymore.
And these were the types of stunts Adrian had been doing for years, creating tension and causing spite between the sisters.
27th Jul 2023
Signs (2002)
Question: How did the crickets know that the aliens were a threat, resulting in them stopping chirping? In fact, how did animals, in general, know before the all-out assault raid on Earth?
Answer: I think a general answer is that animals, bugs, etc. learn at an early age the sounds and appearances of predators and know which predators to fear, plus may have instincts to sense danger. When a new or different sound is introduced (e.g. the trilling of the aliens), species would instinctively go into defensive mode until they can ascertain if they are or not something to be feared. The "fight or flight" response would apply – it is better to play it safe than be eaten. So, they may not have known the aliens were a threat, but they had to assume that until they knew otherwise. (Better to be safe than sorry.)
11th Jun 2018
Zookeeper (2011)
Question: What does the Lion mean that "humans can't handle it" if they do break the code to talk to them?
Answer: Most likely that learning that animals could always talk would be a big shock to them and they wouldn't know how to handle it.
What they're (Humans) gonna do if they can't?
When a "reality that has always been true" (animals can't talk) turns out to be false, the world as adults knew it is suddenly turned upside-down, which causes stress. The things adults said in the presence of animals were actually understood by them when adults presumed they were not. This could cause anxiety, embarrassment, regret, and other "difficult to handle" emotions. Cruel words directed toward animals ("You're so ugly; "You're stupid") can't be taken back, which would be disturbing.
The new reality would require a period of adjustment wherein adults would have to deal with and overcome their emotions and any past transgressions toward animals while learning to communicate more effectively and appropriately with them.
22nd Sep 2017
Predator 2 (1990)
Question: What does the Elder Predator say after Glover reads the pistol inscription? As in, the Predator says "take it", Glover reads it and says "1715", and the Predator then appears to say something else as he walks away.
Answer: Nothing which can be discerned. The subtitles on Disney+ simply say "growls, indistinct". Given the other times Predators speak English are fairly clear, if gutteral, and covered by subtitles too, this seems to be just some kind of grunting dismissal rather than any specific words. Or it's something in the Yautja language we're not meant to understand, such as commanding the pilot to take off, given the ship powers up immediately afterwards, but there's no canonical answer.
Answer: He says "Take it".
What does the predator say after he says "take it" he said something before he left.
Hard to pick out but he says "Major", in reference to the last time a Predator was killed by a human.
He doesn't say anything after "take it", just a short grunt as he turns around to leave. Try watching it with subtitles and you'll have it confirmed.
Answer: Leave now.
No I literally have it paused after replaying many times, and he doesn't say leave now, it's something more like peace out or something close as in two short sounds.
Answer: Drew's SCRIPT-O-RAMA.COM indicates he said, "1715", apparently in reference to the date inscribed on the gun. However, AVPGALAXY indicates that the 17th century "Matchlock Pistol" had "1640" engraved on it - which would have been in the 17th century (unlike the 1715 date).
Answer: To me it sounds like "Kill some" or "Kill them".
Answer: I think it was (in "predator lingo") "We're leaving. You should too."
25th Jun 2014
Predator (1987)
Question: This bugged me for years, when Billy said there is something in the trees to Dutch and in the next shot it shows the trees, is the Predator there, as in visible onscreen?
Chosen answer: Yes. The predator can be seen not in the immediate shot after, but the one a few seconds later as they are seen walking away.
Before or after Ramirez gets hit in the face with the branch?
About 3 seconds before. If you look VERY closely (probably needing to pause the screen around 00:40:55 - about a minute after Billy said, "There's something in the trees"), there appears to be a transparent image of The Predator in the background above the major's (Arnold's) right shoulder. If this is meant to be The Predator, its body is curved around a tree trunk and its arms are extended toward the right of the screen (near Arnold's right ear), camouflaged as green leaves.
The Predator - in a recognizable form - really wasn't visible until another minute later @ 00:41:55 when it was on the ground approaching Hawkins and the woman.
No, it can't. I've just been through this several times and the predator isn't shown on screen at any time during or just after after the conversation.
22nd Aug 2019
Child's Play (2019)
Question: Just after Chucky kills Shane, why did he say that it was for Tupac? Since he wanted Andy to be happy, shouldn't he have said that it was for Andy?
Answer: I wouldn't read into it much more than just a joke: Chucky heard that joke earlier when the kids in the street were trying to make him do things for their cell phone cameras. So he just re-used it later as he often does in the movie.
It was a joke that some kid said when he had the Chucky doll.
Answer: Yeah the kid said that so Chuckie said it too.
Answer: Chucky's A.I. enabled him to learn from others and through experience. Chucky was repeating what the neighborhood boy told him to say ("This is for Tupac"), but Andy's reaction to Chucky stabbing the stuffed unicorn was obviously negative - Chucky would have learned that stabbing someone would not make Andy happy. Hence, Chucky was demonstrating what he learned from Andy's friend/acquaintance and said, "This is for Tupac" (not "This is for Andy").
Chucky might have also thought that some kids view "This is for Tupac" as funny and an appropriate thing to say, but Andy did not because he stopped him when he was stabbing the stuffed unicorn. Also, Chucky didn't know what "Tupac" was or meant. That is, Tupac would not have been recognized as a person's name, so he would not know that he could substitute another person's name, such as by saying "Andy" instead.
15th Apr 2018
Matilda (1996)
Question: One of the cops said Matilda would end up in a federal orphanage once Harry was in federal prison, but can't her mother take care of her? She seems to have no idea that Harry's a criminal, and also where is the evidence that the mother is involved?
Answer: She knows. Listen to her and Harry after their TV explodes: "I told you that was a cheap set." "It's not a cheap set, it's a stolen set!" She knows that Harry is a criminal.
Answer: Also, when Zenia is talking to the cops aka speedboat salesmen, she's talking about Harry having money in banks all over the place.
Answer: It is questionable in what time period the movie is set, but it appears to be at least the 1970s or 1980s - or, after orphanages were replaced with group homes, foster homes, and other more child-friendly places. The threat of sending Matilda to a "federal orphanage" was designed to scare her and get her to reveal what she knew. Matilda could not be sent to a federal orphanage because they no longer existed.
3rd Aug 2019
Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010)
Question: When Gregory was singing beautifully for his audition, did he really sing that well, or did he lip-sync from someone else singing?
Answer: That was not him singing, that was another kid singing.
Answer: According to wiki.celebrity.fm and diaryofawimpykid.fandom.com, L.J. Benet provided the singing voice for Greg in the movie.
Answer: Where did you hear that? Because on IMDb, it says that everyone EXCEPT Greg did their own singing.
Answer: That was Zachary Gordon's actual singing voice.
28th Nov 2022
Mr. Holland's Opus (1995)
Question: Why can't Glenn understand anything Cole signs, leaving Iris to translate? Glenn knows and uses sign language when talking to Cole so it seems strange that he doesn't know anything that Cole tells him when Cole uses sign language.
Answer: Iris knows and understands sign language much better than her husband. Glen can communicate on a basic level, but when Cole is ready to tell off his father, he wants to make sure Glen understands exactly what he's saying. Remember how Glen didn't know the sign for 'a***hole'.
Answer: Glenn was passionate about music and wanted to be a great composer, something relatively few people are able to attain. At least initially, taking a part-time music teacher position was not what he wanted to do or be - but it provided the resources to support himself/his family while giving him enough time to pursue his dream (music composition/opus). Glenn had an on-again/off-again (mostly "off") relationship with his son Cole, perhaps sometimes due to his lack of commitment, time constraints, frustration, sense of failure, and emotional pain over his belief that he could not successfully nurture the love of music in his near-deaf son. (Glenn was aware of the difficulties Beethoven had.) In some ways, Glenn (selfishly) was saying, "I don't have time for this" (communicating in sign language or providing the fatherly devotion and sacrifice necessary to understand and develop a good rapport with his "special needs" son).
5th Nov 2022
Columbo (1971)
Any Old Port in a Storm - S3-E2
Question: As a homicide detective, why would Columbo have been present at an apparent drowning incident?
Answer: "Apparent" drowning answers your question - things are not always as they seem. Drowning could be accidental, but it could also be a murder in disguise. Moreover, the actual cause of death has not yet been determined - accident, suicide, murder, or natural cause (e.g, heart attack while swimming). Columbo would be there to investigate if anything looks unusual for it to be a mere drowning or if there is evidence or suspicion of something else.
This was just on TMZ.com's "Aaron Carter Dead at 34" (11/05/2022): "Law enforcement sources tell TMZ... homicide detectives have been dispatched to the scene but we have no information or evidence of foul play. It's standard operating procedure for homicide detectives to investigate such [drowning] death scenes."
16th Oct 2022
Forrest Gump (1994)
Question: Forrest's mother doesn't want him at a "special school", where he would learn "how to re-tread tires." What does that mean? Would a school for mentally disabled children also be a vocational/trade school?
Answer: In the past, (perceived) "dumb" students were more likely to be placed into vocational rather than academic programs because it was assumed they had limited ability and would not "amount to much" in life (make much of themselves). Therefore, they could at least be trained to perform something almost anyone could do with little or no training. Once someone is trained how to re-tread tires, for example, he should be able to repeatedly do the same thing everyday for years and be "productive." A variation of re-treading tires was learning how to make "birdhouses and ashtrays" - non-essential products in society that some people still might want to buy.
More recently, the trend has been to "mainstream" such students - keep them in classes with their peers.
23rd Jul 2014
Legends of the Fall (1994)
Question: Before committing suicide, why did Susannah cut her hair? I've seen this behaviour in other films but have never known the psychology behind it.
Answer: Cutting locks of hair is often done in memory of the deceased. Knowing of her impending death, she cut two locks so as not to have them tainted by blood, but dropped one on the floor. I imagine it was the one for Alfred, but it is just my opinion.
I have goosebumps with this interpretation. I always thought that it was related someone with "scalping." She kills herself. She is her own victim. I don't know.
I agree, I always thought it was a symbolic scalping.
Answer: I think Susannah cut two locks of hair, one for her husband Alfred and the other for her true love Tristan. They were mementos in some respect, but also a clue for her suicide - being married to one brother while loving the other who no longer wanted to be with her. Susannah was torn apart, in pain over losing Tristan and probably felt she could not be true or faithful to Alfred if/when Tristan came around again. She would also have guilt over violating her marriage vows if she were to be with Tristan again while married to Alfred.
Chosen answer: To give a definitive answer would be misleading because there's no one specific reason why someone does this type of thing. People considering suicide often start exhibiting odd and/or uncharacteristic behavior such as suddenly cutting one's hair. In Susannah's case, it could be a form of self-mutilation, an attempt to change who she is by altering her appearance, or it is a way of controlling something in her life while other events spiral out-of-control, and so on.
Answer: I always thought it was she wanted people to know. She didn't want the wound to be covered.
8th Dec 2021
Legends of the Fall (1994)
Question: What happened to Susanna's dog Fin she first arrived off the train with? (00:09:22)
Answer: It isn't uncommon in movie and TV series/shows for pets to be introduced then quietly or gradually phased out with no mention of what happened to them. This seems to be the case with Finn. After Susannah and Finn first appeared, Finn was shown four times (first when he went onto "Mother's room" and fourth/last lying near the tennis court net @ 00:19:08). "Many, many" years passed until Tristan returned home, so it can be assumed that Finn was no longer alive. Perhaps something tragic happened to Finn, but it might be best to assume Finn lived a long happy life and died of old age.
2nd Jan 2022
Fear (1996)
Question: What were David and his friends doing with the dogs? What was their crime?
Answer: Not enough information was revealed in the short scene to make any conclusions and there was no concrete evidence that a (dog-related) crime was being committed. There was not even any indication that a dog was present. One might GUESS that David and his friends prepared dogs for illegal dog-fighting or trained dogs to be dangerous, aggressive watch (or "attack") dogs, but there is no proof. "We're here to see a man about a dog" may sound suspicious or shady, but could mean something as innocent as looking for a lost pet. [00:38:36]. There is a second "clue" much later in the movie when Mr. Walker is talking on the phone: "They're running their own cartel and you can't do a goddamn thing about it"? Mr. Walker probably saw some evidence when he broke into their house. While it might be assumed he means a drug cartel, not all cartels are drug-related. But, relating this scene to the earlier one, it appears "We're here to see a man about a dog" is the code for wanting to buy drugs. (The man who answered the door replied, "Does this look like a kennel?") David and his friends/gang appear to have been selling drugs out of their home. [01:15:55].
17th Sep 2022
General questions
I need help with the title of a book my teacher read to my class in 5th grade, circa 1995. The only details I remember were it taking place in either the North or South Pole, and the main character killed a polar bear by shooting it in the head.
Answer: It may or may not help, but polar bears don't live in Antarctica (the South Pole).
Answer: If you aren't recalling the details, the only movie (and book) around this time period that I can think of is "Alaska" (1996), starring Vincent Kartheiser and Thora Birch. But Vincent did not shoot a polar bear - a poacher shot a mother polar bear and the baby followed the kids while they searched for their father who had wrecked his plane.
I've never seen the movie Alaska, but the book in question feels like it was probably more of a survival story rather than an adventure. The only additional detail I can give is that the teacher assigned us to draw a scene from the book, and since the protagonist shot the polar bear in the head, many of the boys in the class, myself included, decided to draw that scene, complete with exaggerated gore.
"Alaska" was about survival.
I wonder if your teacher may have deliberately altered some information (e.g, the boy shooting the bear) to make the story more relevant and provocative to the grade level and whatever discussion questions that were given?
I've only seen the Nostalgia Critic's review of it, but wasn't it about the father's survival while his children were on an adventure of sorts to rescue him? Again, I'm not familiar with the "Alaska" book, but it seems like the protagonist for my book was an adult male and it was told from his point of view.
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: Did they used to have school on Christmas Eve day?
Brian Katcher