Question: When Norman says the guy "that wrote that book he loves" (Shumway?) congratulated him on Spencer's Theorem, then Claire says "He didn't know your father was dead?" and Norman says "He knew". What does one thing have to do with the other? I've seen this movie at least 20 times and I can't figure out this conversation.
Chosen answer: Spencer's theorem was Norman's father's theorem. Norman wants to be greater than his father was, so to be accidentally complemented on something that his father did would be bad enough. To say that the guy knows that his father is dead is to imply that the guy probably insulted him intentionally.
Question: How can Michael recognize Laurie as his younger sister since he wouldn't have seen her since she was only two years old?
Answer: There is a scene where Laurie dreams about meeting Michael as a young teen. It's unknown whether this is an actual memory of real events, but since nothing indicates otherwise, we could assume the he saw her at an older age when she looked closer to her 17-year-old self.
Question: Does "the girl" - as she's been called - have a name? And is she a (or the) devil?
Answer: She was not given a name, neither in the film nor credits. She is simply known as "The Girl". As to precisely who she is, it is deliberately left ambiguous. But the last engraving found by Corso does seem to indicate that she is the Whore of Babylon mentioned in the Book of Revelation.
Question: When Lamont is struggling to stop the Phurba from cutting his throat, how did he finally manage to get control over the Phurba and use it to stab Khan?
Answer: Mind control over matter.
Answer: He had never gone up against someone like him. A man who not only knew how to harness his abilities, but had mastered them as well, like young Luke going up against Vader. He finally found the strength and the courage to fight and defeat him.
Question: If Sasha really is blind and she is Alex Trusk but she IS a computer hacker.What good is a computer hacker that blind wouldn't she not be able to see the screen or anything of the sort?
Chosen answer: Blind people use computers all the time. There are Braille monitors that interpret the visual images on the screen into Braille. They can also use speech synthesisers to convert the images into audible information.
Question: In the scene in the girl's locker room, after Heather Chandler's death, why does Veronica get into a shower with her clothes on?
Answer: I think it's one of those "This can't be happening, I must be dreaming" moments. Same as when a character pinches themselves in order to wake up, or they tell someone to pinch them. Veronica can hardly believe what she and JD did.
Question: What happened to the previous CIA director in The Bourne Supremacy who was replaced by Erza Kramer in The Bourne Ultimatum?
Chosen answer: The script of The Bourne Supremacy actually calls Martin Marshall the "Deputy Vice-Director" of the CIA, although in the same script and film dialog, Landy refers to him as "Director Marshall". So it appears Kramer is CIA Director in all the Bourne films, but Marshall is either acting Director in Kramer's absence or is just referred to as a Director.
Question: Reverend Lowe says that he's been killing people because of the sins they committed but why did he kill Brady? He never committed a sin.
Answer: Firstly, Reverend Lowe is deluding himself by saying he only kills people because of their sins. He is in fact wracked with guilt over his actions and has at least one vivid nightmare about this. Secondly, in the Christian faith all humans are considered sinners so this gives Reverend Lowe a justification for his beliefs. Anyone he kills would be a sinner in his eyes, including Brady.
I think the first part is more accurate. It really has nothing to do with the idea of original sin or everyone being a sinner since he states he only punishes the evil, corrupt, and immoral. He tells Marty he'd never hurt an innocent child. He just really has no control of his Wolf side and is lying to himself about why he kills.
Question: Me and my friend have debated this each time we have watched the movie and I finally decided to ask the question here to see who is right. When they are discussing their plan and saying they need the plane for it, Saito says "I bought the airline... It seemed neater." My interpretation of this is that he bought out all the tickets on that particular flight so the plane would be empty and weed out risk of interruption from other passengers, as doing that made it so there are no other passengers. But my friend thinks he means he bought the entire brand of the airline, so that he now owns the company that has that plane. Like buying out SouthWest Airlines as a company or something. So who is right? What did Saito mean? Did he buy out all the tickets for that flight, or did he buy the whole airline company?
Chosen answer: He bought out the actual airline company. If he'd bought out all the tickets for that specific journey he'd have said "I bought out the flight" or similar. It's a deliberately over the top moment of exuberance to highlight exactly how rich Satio is. I'm afraid that it is your friend who is correct, sorry.
Question: How did blood drop reached Marta's shoes, even though it was too far from Christopher Plummer in the suicide scene? (00:53:50)
Answer: To add slightly to the other answer, evidently some of the blood in the scene had to be digitally removed for the film to secure a PG-13 rating, which explains why we don't see any actual spray/gush. But we are to assume that a drop managed to splash onto her shoe when he slit his throat.
Answer: The rationale is that blood can travel quite far from an artery and her shoe therefore got the droplet on it even from the doorway - however it does seem to me that the filmic portrayal is lacking, since you don't actually see any instance of spray. Rian Johnson' script says "Blood gushes." What we see in the scene is that it is trickling down his cut - a bit.
Question: When Harry finds Eliot tied up, he removes the tape and tells him that the kidnappers have been caught. Why did Eliot confess to being the actual mastermind behind the kidnapping? Harry had no idea it was Eliot behind it all so he could have gotten away with it if he didn't say anything.
Question: When the character was at the cafe and the truck was there, but he didn't know who the driver was, why didn't he just go and wait by the truck, smash the windshield, fill the gas tank with sugar or water, slash the tyres?
Answer: At that point in the film, the protagonist David Mann is ready to confront the truck driver. When he sees the old Peterbilt truck outside, David mistakenly assumes the truck driver has already entered the diner, so he confronts a likely suspect that he sees at the counter (but he has misidentified the man). The misidentified man takes offense and punches David out. By the time he recovers his senses, David sees the old Peterbilt truck leaving the parking lot. Which means the actual homicidal truck driver never entered the diner in the first place and was waiting outside the whole time. If David had first gone outside to the Peterbilt, there was a good chance the waiting homicidal truck driver would have killed him right there, and the story would have abruptly ended. So, David's misidentification of the truck driver allowed the film to move ahead into its next act.
Yes, I get why the filmmakers did that, but I still think it is a plot hole. If the Dennis Weaver character was afraid of getting killed by the truck driver, I doubt he would have confronted him in the cafe.
Question: Greenwall says that the warrior must stand on the tower for five days. Wouldn't he die of dehydration?
Answer: Not if somebody climbed up and gave him some water to drink.
Answer: As someone else said, somebody could give him water. The test might be more about staying in one place and denying himself the daily activities and pleasures of life - not having access to his usual amount of water and food.
Question: Probably a dumb question, but does Robert Englund really paint pictures for a hobby...or was that simply made up for the film?
Chosen answer: According to his wife, the painting was made specifically for the movie. Robert doesn't paint at all.
Answer: He's a surfer dude, he wanted to be polishing his boards for that scene.
Question: What (if any) is the significance of the "OZ" graffiti that pops up throughout the film? It became quite distracting as I thought it would pay off at the end of the film.
Answer: The 'OZ' sprayer is a very disturbed man who claims to be an artist but the courts think otherwise. You can found his OZ (which he claims to be read OLI!) everywhere in Berlin and Hamburg. It has absolutely nothing to do with the movie but you can't film a wide open scene in Berlin without taping it.
Answer: Mise en scene. OZ / OLI is firstly a name. Asking what or rather who OZ / OLI is, is the point. One of the main questions of the film is what constitutes a person's identity.
Question: If Sandra is at the scene of the accident, what is the purpose of the police officer showing up at the door to tell her Jim is dead?
Answer: It's fairly obvious that this film's theme is that knowing the future changes it. I.e. knowing there would be an accident, she travelled there and caused an accident.
Answer: Possibly she left the scene before the police arrived, so they did not know she had been there.
Question: There's a quote that I don't understand: "The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen." I immediately thought, "Yes, it does change the fact that it was going to happen." If Witwer hadn't put his hand there, it would have happened. However, he did, thus "changing the fact that it was going to happen," right? Isn't this the point of the whole movie: determinism is foolish and that different actions produce different consequences?
Answer: No, he didn't change the fact that it was going to happen. He prevented it from happening. But until he stopped it, it was going to happen. And no matter how many times you look back at that sequence, it was going to happen. Up until a point, it was going to happen. It was just prevented.
Answer: The statement involves the idea of arresting people who did not commit the crime yet but are going to. Until the precogs tell someone to change things, the idea is that it will happen. If Anderton had rolled the ball and the other guy was not watching, it was going to fall. The only way to change it would have been for Anderton to say something. Things will happen unless the future is changed. Ultimately the idea is proven sketchy at the end at best.
Question: At the end of the movie, when they are at the tip of the plane, Jodi and her daughter slip into a tiny compartment, just as she activates the bomb. She and her daughter are safe, and the small space they were in must have been bomb-proof. Since that compartment is at a part of the plane that is rarely visited, how come a tiny place was made entirely bomb-proof? Or what was the space they climbed into and for what reason was it made?
Answer: The hatch they climb into is the hold of the plane, i.e., the section with the coffin, the car, and all the other luggage in. It only appears small because of the way it is filmed. As Kyle would have known, it would have been extra strong and reinforced, as it was a break in two sections of the plane.
Chosen answer: They do not still have gravity. Romilly is actually floating, but nothing is ever shown from behind his back, so the floating is gone unnoticed. In fact, during some shots of Romilly, you can see his feet floating behind him.
Casual Person