Question: How did Palpatine come back? Cloned? Or somehow survived the Death Star explosion, which seems unlikely.
Answer: It is not said exactly how he came back. He says that he had died before which presumably is him dying in ROTJ. The most we get is the reference to Sith ability that some consider unnatural.
It is not said how he came back, but I get the idea that he was using the Force to keep himself alive. At least that's the message I was getting when I saw that Palpatine's fingers were wilted away. And I thought that the power he was using was urging his life to go on, but his physical appearence was being dragged behind.
Answer: The line "The dark side is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural" is a direct reference to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, in which Palpatine says the same line verbatim to Anakin. Recall that a major plot point to that prequel is that the Sith have long been rumored to have found a method to cheat death. This film strongly suggests that Palpatine had indeed discovered this method. The film doesn't go into specifics. My understanding is the novelization says his body is a clone. Going by his appearance in the film (blank eyes; body manipulated by machine), it suggests to me that he is a reanimated corpse.
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: What is the actual reason given why the police couldn't find Billy's mom? Just the fact his mom didn't want to find him and left doesn't mean the cops would stop looking. It's hard to imagine a 5 year old isn't able to tell the cops his address, where he goes to school or where he lives in general. Teachers, neighbours, his physician or dentist, classmates, all can tell where the mom is. Next to that isn't his dad in prison and thus easy to find?
Answer: He was a baby when he was abandoned - all he knew about his mother was her name, not her birth date or social security number. He didn't know anything about his father and his mother went back to her maiden name. In case you're wondering not everybody has their DNA taken.
He knew his full name. He's a legitimate son born in wedlock. They would have easily tracked down the father who is an inmate: that is on top of what the original poster mentioned, such as his home address or other minimal information. Lionhead, I believe this belongs in the Plot Holes section rather than simply the Questions section: I am not informed about Pennsylvania's laws for child abandonment, but I think it's rather unlikely that someone could just drop their kid in the middle of a crowd and get away with it entirely, especially when the kid knows his own full name.
I'm not too eager to put it in the plot holes section, because it is plausible I suppose that she disappeared willingly and they couldn't find her specifically. But you address the right point I was trying to make that the cops won't simply stop looking for his mother. It's a crime to abandon your child and they will look up and question a lot of people. And I mean a lot of people to find her. Even if there is literally no family besides mom and dad, the dad will be found since he is in prison. He won't be able to help much but contact will be maintained, even if he doesn't want it.
The thing is, they don't even have to question a lot of people since the kid is not a newborn left on the steps of a church or something: he was able to provide his own full name to the authorities. So it's absolutely straightforward for the police to see who his parents are - although it should be noted that he was born in a different state, I don't think it should be a particularly complicated research for the authorities.
Question: I don't understand Max's punishment. In the ending, Max says "a month in the hole", but his father tells him that birthdays, holidays, and summers are cancelled. He also tells his son that "the devil lives inside him", to no longer call him "Dad", takes away his electronics, locks him in his room, and says that he will always love him, but no longer likes him. So, is Max grounded for life or is it "a month in the hole"? Are his birthdays, holidays, and summers really cancelled? And does anyone else find this ending to a comedy actually depressing because of the way Max's father treats him in the end?
Answer: Max's dad probably over-reacted out of anger/rage over the drone and destroyed room and might have made changes after he cooled off. Plus, it was meant to be humorous. A "month in the hole" was immediately imposed; no more birthdays, holidays, summer, etc. would refer to after the month in the hole. Max's dad did not say he couldn't attend school-related events, such as the "Rock of Ages" show. Parents are supposed to give their kids unconditional love. A father can continue to love his son while disliking his behavior. Max's dad may have been unduly harsh (again, out of anger), but he still loves Max - which shouldn't be depressing. I don't think Max's dad said he was grounded for life, just grounded. However, Lucas told his parents that Max was grounded for life - an exaggeration.
So, even after being grounded for a month, he can't celebrate his birthday or summer vacation?
Not necessarily. Max's dad said those things in the heat of the moment. Although it is possible that Max's dad meant what he said (at least at the time), it isn't probable. The severity of the punishment given to Max was a reflection of how angry Mr. Newman was. A proud and loving father who tells his son "I will always love you..." is more likely to forgive Max so that they can return to their good father/son relationship.
Answer: He is grounded for a month, although he cannot have birthday parties or summers or anything.
So, even after being grounded for a month, he can't celebrate his birthday or summer vacation?
It's entirely understandable that Max's dad is totally peed off with Max for what happened with the drone and accidentally thrashing the house and probably said a lot of what he did in the heat of the moment. To totally deny the kid a vacation is one thing (and makes sense considering the grounding is for a month as the time frame is around that time of year) but a birthday as well? What the dad probably meant was no birthday party (and no fun) for that year, its not like four years later and "we're not going on vacation this year because you did something stupid when you were 12."
And Mr. Newman saying, "No more summers" is probably meant to be an exaggeration to get across to Max the authority he has over him and ability to stop him from engaging in fun activities. Similarly, Mrs. Newman said, "Winter is coming!" The restrictions they put on Max might make him feel as though there are no fun, sunny, carefree days. The parents obviously cannot CHANGE what season it is, but they can impose restrictions that will make him feel as though it is a different season.
Question: When Eddie takes a face full of projectile sludge from the leper, is there any significance to the song "Angel of the Morning" playing, or was it just a random attempt at a joke?
Answer: I think it's more of an attempt at a silly joke, juxtaposing the insane imagery with a tender song. But I've also seen the suggestion that it was an Easter Egg/reference to the book "The Langoliers," in which the song is mentioned. (And given the "It" films have some general Stephen King Easter Eggs referencing things from his other books, that makes sense).
Question: Why was this movie so controversial?
Answer: In a nutshell, it's because the film's protagonist is a mentally disturbed killer, and certain groups in America thought the film's violence would lead to copycat behavior.
I never got this aspect of the controversy, if anything, it goes to show what can happen when mental illness goes untreated.
I agree with you on that, but unfortunately, there's so many people, at least in the United States, that have no sense of nuance and are prone to knee-jerk reactions. They would rather condemn and blame different kinds of media for society's ills, rather than stop and look at the message something is trying to tell.
I read about the concern over possible copycat behavior in an on-line article; Phaneron's answer is correct.
Answer: Because the left thought it would encourage violence and mocked liberal run cities.The right thought the same on violence, it seemingly justified a mentally ill guy's actions, that it made white businessmen bad guys. Both sides in general only complained about Joker for attention.
Question: Why doesn't JJJ look like himself? True he's being played by JK Simmons but here he's bald without the trademark Jameson hairstyle.
Answer: The general movie-going audience doesn't always know the difference between MCU movies and movies that are based on Marvel properties made by other studios. Jameson's different look might have been done to avoid confusing fans into thinking that this iteration of Spider-Man is somehow connected to the Sam Raimi films.
Question: After CJ went to the party with Shane, the police arrest CJ and let the others get away. It's kind of ridiculous. Why would they catch her only?
Answer: Just because they only caught her doesn't mean that they didn't get anyone else. She was there at the party so she may have been able to tell the police who all was there that night or give descriptions of people.
Question: At various points in the film the car brakes are glowing red hot, would this happen in real life or is it for show?
Answer: Watch any NASCAR short track night race where heavy braking is required, the brake rotors glow at every turn.
Answer: I watched this movie with my father, who actually participated in Autocross races in the past. He says from first hand experience that this is indeed real. The breaks get so heated from use in the race during the rapid slowing and going that they glow hot. This is why there are racing grade breaks and it's unwise to try and race without them.
Agreed. My dad is a former race car mechanic and he said that this absolutely happens all the time.
Question: At the end of the movie, Will Smith (the older one) has a present for his son/brother/younger self; his official documents he apparently did not have. Passport, driving license and birth certificate; he congratulates him on his name choice. And he gives those to him as Junior is walking out of the college campus, which he obviously is already frequenting and where he made many friends. I know the US system allows undocumented students, but can you even enroll without the most basic ID? In particular since he is in Georgia, which reportedly is one of the strictest states about it.
Question: This may seem simplistic, but what happened to the police who were meant to arrive in 14 minutes?
Answer: They were delayed or killed. When the family was given the 14 minute estimate it was before anyone, including the police, realised the extent of the problem.
Answer: If the police arrive in 14 minutes, they would be dead and killed by their doppelgängers - Red, Abraham, ombre, and Pluto.
Question: What was wrong with Rachel's sister Zelda? In the flashbacks it shows the older sister as having a twisted spine and being in bed. But what was wrong with her? Was she crippled?
Answer: In the original film, she has a condition called "spinal meningitis," which is an infection in the fluids and membranes around the spine and brain. The disease in real life can cause a range of effects including severe joint and back pain, weight loss, light sensitivity and even brain damage. The implication in both films seems to be that we're not really seeing the "real" Zelda, but more of a monstrous version of Zelda based on Rachel's memory as a child.
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.
Question: I don't quite get how the Hoffa killing plays out. His son is there in the car, Frank and Jimmy go into the house, Frank shoots him, apparently not heard, then leaves the house...doesn't Chuckie Hoffa have questions? Like where his dad is for a start, let alone the gunshots he must have heard?
Chosen answer: First off his name was Chuckie O'Brian. Jimmy Hoffa wasn't his biological father, he was more in the nature of a foster father. Second, he probably knew what happened. What was Chuckie going to do? It was a sanctioned hit. And if he went to the police he would have ended up the same as Jimmy Hoffa. They put him in the middle of it to keep him quiet. If he goes after the people who did it, he's as good as dead. If he talks he could end up in jail with them, and the mafia will probably kill him anyway.
Question: The Lord of Downton in the movie states "The King and Queen are coming to Downton." Since they are British, wouldn't he have said, "Your Majesties are coming to Downton"? Also, isn't the wife of the monarch of the United Kingdom called the "King Consort" not the Queen? I know Prince Philip is not called "King", he is the Queen Consort.
Answer: Re the first part, it's just a matter of word choice, not a mistake, even if it might be "wrong" from an etiquette point of view. For the second question, no, the wife of the King is called the Queen, conventionally. Technically "Queen consort", to draw a distinction from the reigning monarch, in that she has the title of Queen but not the same political power. But the husband of a reigning Queen isn't called a King, or even a King consort, generally, because in the UK a King is viewed as a higher authority, so would imply a greater status than that of his wife, who's the actual monarch. Prince Philip isn't the Queen consort, he would be a Prince Consort, but doesn't have that title, hes a "Prince of the United Kingdom." The only husband of a Queen to have held the title of Prince Consort was Prince Albert, husband to Queen Victoria. It's largely a semantic/title difference and comes down to personal preference/the will of the reigning monarch.
Question: When police scour the old neighbourhood, there is a shot of a man wearing some kind of huge metal suit. What was this suit used for? (00:46:53)
Answer: Most likely protective body armour.
Question: How did the monkeys get onto the space ship and why were they so aggressive?
Answer: On the way from the Moon to Mars, the Cepheus interplanetary vessel receives an automated distress signal from a Norwegian bio-medical space station (that studies and conducts experiments on Earth animals in the deep-space environment). Apparently, a couple of very powerful and temperamental adult baboons escaped from their cages and killed everyone aboard the space station, feeding on their bodies. When the Cepheus answers the distress signal and arrives at the space station, the baboons attack and try to eat Captain Tanner and Roy McBride, also.
Question: How was John expected to kill Winston? It's made clear killing anyone on continental grounds results in death, so why was the adjudicator insisting John kill Winston whilst inside the continental? Wouldn't he technically be excommunicado all over again for breaking the most important rule?
Answer: Winston had broken the rules by allowing John to escape in the first place before trying to kill him. This effectively nullified the Continental's immunity while Winston was in charge do to himself breaking the rules. Therefor, John would not be breaking any further rules by killing him on the Continental grounds as it had been desanctified, and thus John would have been cleaning it to allow it become such once more and clearing his own name.
Question: This is a two part question: firstly if Crazy Carl was onto Sonic why didn't he find any of Sonic's quills when Tom found one without even looking for one? Secondly: what happened to the ring that Sonic threw and bounced of the robot, did he get it back, or will it play a part in getting Robotnick back in the possible sequel?
Chosen answer: According to the novelization, Palpatine sensed Vader's internal conflict and created a clone as a backup in the event that Vader betrayed him. When Vader threw him down the shaft, Palpatine transferred his consciousness into the clone's body.