Question: This has always confused me. In the scene with the guards, which one always lies and the other always speaks the truth, Sarah asks which door leads to the castle gate then she figures out the riddle and chooses a door. However, the door she chooses, the supposedly correct choice, doesn't lead her to the entrance instead it's a trap. So did she choose the wrong door, or just the wrong direction for the hands to take her?
Answer: She did choose the right door...if she had chosen up, she would have very likely come out at the castle, but she chose down.
If you pay attention down was also the correct answer. The Goblin king was angry when he discovered she was down there "She never should have made it this far" or something similar upon finding this out. Had she chosen up she would have ended up back at the beginning.
Answer: Sarah did indeed select the right door and did ask a sensible, albeit confusing question. The reason she fell into the oubliette (and the helping hands) is because as she walked through the door she said "I think I'm getting smarter. This is a piece of cake" - saying "piece of cake" within the Labyrinth to say how easy something is brings bad luck upon those who say it. Sarah said it to Jareth and he upped the stakes (reducing her time). Hoggle said it later (in Goblin City) and then they got surrounded by Goblins.
Question: When Lightning is crushed by the statue at the end of the movie, he sends out dozens of bolts of energy before he dies. The final wisp of electricity forms a Chinese character. Does anyone know what it means?
Answer: It's the symbol for "carpenter" after the director John Carpenter.
Question: Paul Ruebens does the voice of Max but why in the credits does it say that the voice of Max was done by Paul Mall?
Answer: According to IMDB, Paul Mall is just another one of his names people know him by.
Answer: It was Paul Reubens' idea to use a pseudonym, so as to keep the voice of Max a mystery and to surprise any fans of his.
Question: Why is the secretary was so rude to Howard when he tried to find the job?
Answer: As she said to Howard, she believed that he was using his "outlandish" appearance to be unable to find work and collect money through unemployment. She's probably dealt with people who did the same thing and was eventually sick of it.
Question: In the train dodging scene, why didn't the loco crew brake at all? They definitely saw the boys in front. I know that trains have very long stopping distances compared to road vehicles, but still. And why didn't the boys try to signal the driver to stop? I get it that they panicked, but still wouldn't that be the first thing coming to one's mind in such a situation?
Answer: No, it wasn't that big of a train. He didn't even attempt to get off the throttle. That's all it would have taken for the boys to make it fairly easy. It was a straight-away track, no chance of it derailing by hitting the brakes. Like the man said above, if trains derailed that easily, we wouldn't be using them.
Answer: To add to the other fine answers, and as mentioned, any attempt to make a sudden stop could have resulted in derailment. The conductor knew the train was about to go over an elevated track, and if it derailed, it would have plunged into the deep ravine, killing the boys anyway, as well as those on aboard. The best he could do was blow the whistle, gradually slow the train, and hope the boys survived.
Can't agree with the arguments about derailment. If trains derailed so easily, they would derail all the time. The train had only 4 or 5 cars. It would not have needed miles to stop. Simply reducing the throttle would have resulted in significant slowing. Plus, they did not stop to determine if anyone was hurt. That is criminal behavior.
Answer: Throwing on brakes that heavily gives the train a chance of derailing and the train still wouldn't stop in time.
Answer: A train that size would have needed miles to stop, and rapid braking could have caused derailment. The engineer was blowing his whistle so he saw the boys; there was no need for them to signal. The engineer and the boys knew their only chance was to get off the bridge.
Question: During the scene with "live it up" playing in the background, what was it and where were they? With Simone being there it is obviously full of hookers but was it a party, and if so, whose and why? The whole scene just feels weird.
Answer: It is a party thrown by one of Sue's socialite friends, presumably the husky-voiced woman whose crotch Mick grabs. The party is not "full of hookers", Simone is there as the hired escort of the old man she is dancing with, who Mick naively believes to be her father. We can assume the old man paid for Simone to be his date to the party and likely for some time alone with her afterwards. There is no stated reason for why the party is being thrown.
Question: Kirk and crew deliberately disclose crucial technological secrets, extend the life of a random stranger, deliver future technology to a primitive military power, abduct a cetacean biologist, and actually contribute to the extinction of a species during their brief stay in 20th Century San Francisco. Specifically: Scotty reveals the secret of Transparent Aluminum 150 years too early; McCoy arbitrarily uses 23rd Century medicine to cure a seriously ill 20th Century woman; and Kirk chooses to remove Gillian from the 20th Century. Perhaps most importantly, Chekov leaves behind a Starfleet Communicator and a Type 2 Phaser in the hands of the U.S. Navy (who would undoubtedly dissect the devices and try to exploit the technology a couple of centuries too soon). Beyond all that, Kirk and crew abduct two breeding humpback whales, one of which is pregnant, and that certainly contributes to humpback extinction in the 21st Century. Given what we think we know about disrupting linear time continuity (many instances are cited in Star Trek canon), how did Kirk and crew return to anything even resembling their own timeline after such blatant and deliberate interference in Earth history?
Chosen answer: This question has been answered a number of times by various individuals, all saying pretty much the same thing. The answers have been most satisfactory given the question revolves around a fictitious situation and the answer (s) need to be accepted as complete for this purpose. Any dispute or non-acceptance should be addressed in a Star Trek forum. Any ignoring of the Prime Directive was done to save the future of Earth, as the probe would have wiped out all life on Earth. Essentially, nothing that was done in the past resulted in major changes that would make Earth 300 years later appear any different, and no major futuristic technologies were revealed. The major one, Chekov's communicator and phaser being left behind did not result in anybody learning secrets. In the film, the phaser didn't function because of the radiation. It's presumed then the radiation permanently damaged the equipment so it appeared to be nothing but a toy or prop. However, in the novel "The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh", Roberta Lincoln was sent by Gary Seven to recover the items from Area 51 before any secrets were learned (and as stated before, additional corrections to Earth's timeline could have been done that aren't addressed in the film.) The subsequent loss of a suspicious "ruskie" would have hardly affected the era that was already in the midst of the Cold War. McCoy even questions that giving Dr. Nichols the formula for transparent aluminum could alter history to which Scotty replies what if Dr. Nichols is the one who invents it, to which McCoy agrees (in a later novel it is reveled that Scotty already knew Dr. Nichols invented transparent aluminum, so history was not changed.) The miraculous recovery of the old lady (growing a new kidney) was done by a pill so that any examination of her would not reveal the futuristic method involved. She would be a bewilderment to the medical community at best, and most likely misdiagnosis would be to blame. And just because she got a new kidney does not mean her life would have been extended, she could have died some other way in both timelines. And as stated before, Gillian simply wasn't vital to Earth's history. She could have contributed nothing of importance to society and died alone and childless. And a missing pair of breeding Humpbacks would hardly affect the extinction of their species, however in the future, they are already extinct, so little changes would occur. As for any questions about people seeing the Klingon ship in the past, who would believe them? People have long been claiming to see spaceships and aliens to little or no avail, so why would anyone believe a handful of people who said they saw aliens in a spaceship steal 2 whales? However, as with many time travel situations in films and novels, it's possible the events of the 23rd century as they appear in the beginning of the film are a result of Kirk and company's actions in the 20th century since the events already occurred even though Kirk and company had not yet done it themselves (this is where a discussion forum on the film would be advised, or a discussion forum on the theories of time travel).
Possibly the most convoluted and poorly-reasoned series of answers I've seen on this site. So far.
I think they're pretty logical actually.
I think your opinion would be in the minority. There is nothing exceptionally convoluted, nor poorly reasoned in the response.
Answer: They were extraordinarily lucky. The crew quite often defies all odds and encounters literal miracles. For a period of time this even happened on a roughly weekly basis.
Question: Does anybody know why Sardo Numspa can't pronounce J's? Such as when he pronounces Chandler Jarell as Yarell. I've looked but can't seem to find any explanation.
Answer: A lot of non english speaking countries have trouble pronouncing the letter J as it does not appear in their alphabet. It is a fairly recent addition to the english language too. Previously words that now start with a J would have began with an "I" sound as in "Iarell".
Question: If Lea Thompson wasn't strapped in during a launch, wouldn't she have suffered more than a couple of bruises from her body being wrapped around a steel column and being under 3G+ during the launch scene?
Answer: Not necessarily. The 3 G's pretty well kept her pinned, so she wasn't bouncing around. If someone can fall 18,000 ft out of an airplane with only a sprained leg (one of several examples) then yes it's theoretically possible. If the guy in this story could withstand 42 g's strapped in, the yes Katherine could've survived 3 g's.
Https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/gravity-forces/.
Question: How much truth is there to the claim that if the G.I. Joe movie had been released first then Optimus Prime would not have died in this one?
Answer: The reason for this is the intent of both movies (G.I.Joe and this one) to kill off the old group and bring in a new group for younger kids. You noticed how most of the dead are from the old cartoon. The backlash was so bad that the G.I.Joe movie was changed to not kill off anyone (if you watch it you can see where characters were meant to die but the show was changed at the last sec to keep them alive. If G.I.Joe was release 1st then they would have died and if the same backlash happened you would have seen no-one die in this one.
Answer: In the UK we don't have G.I Joe, only action force so thats your first problem, and secondly the UK comics built up to the Transformer movie without no mention of G.I Joe story lines which may have appeared in the US.
Question: Is the clan language American sign language, some other sign language or made up?
Answer: Completely made up. It was too difficult to teach all the actors ASL.
Question: How was Biggles able to land the helicopter on a moving train despite only just learning to fly it?
Answer: To add to that, the other door was supposed to lead her to certain death, and technically the oubliette wasn't exactly certain death.