Question: How does old Biff know how to operate the time machine?
Charles Austin Miller
28th Feb 2005
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Chosen answer: He doesn't, but it's hardly difficult to work out - the date setting readout is pretty obvious. Biff presumably set the date, then just accelerated the car until the time circuits kicked in.
Answer: It's a plot hole. Biff couldn't have known or suspected the DeLorean's time-travel procedure, which necessarily included Biff setting the precise 1955 destination with no previous instruction. Biff just suddenly "knew" how to operate a time machine. He also changed the timeline by going back to 1955, so there's no way he could have returned to the "normal" 2015. But he does.
It's not totally impossible that Biff knew how to the time dial worked. He wasn't suspecting what it was, he knew it was a time travel machine and thus knew what the dial was for and possibly being technically educated knew how to use the time dial.
We know from the first movie that Biff, by age 48, was waxing cars for a living in 1985. He hardly had a "technical education" and it's doubtful he acquired a technical education by age 78 in the year 2015. It was established in the first movie that he had become a timid underachiever.
Alright I agree, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. But he has lived for 78 years by then, till 2015. Even though he has no clue on how the flux capacitor works, he doesn't need to, all he needs to do is work the time circuits, a simple keypad system which even shows which display shows which time. For someone from 2015, it's not so hard to figure out.
Answer: He could have taken however long he wanted to figure it out, as long as he returned it to the exact time he took it from. We don't actually see him time travel with it when he takes it, so, for all we know, he could have taken it to his house and taken the few hours/days he needed to figure out how to use it.
29th Jun 2004
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Question: Can someone reiterate the reason the Oracle gives for why her face is different?
Answer: It is explained (partly in "The Matrix Revolutions" and partly in the video game "Enter The Matrix") that the Oracle was forced to change identities and go into hiding because the Merovingian had acquired the Oracle's termination code. Oddly enough, it was Rama and Kamala Kandra (the Indian couple seen in the train station) who betrayed the Oracle, giving her termination code to the Merovingian in exchange for saving their daughter, little Sati, from deletion.
1st Dec 2003
A Christmas Story (1983)
Question: Why do the parents have two twin beds in their bedroom, instead of one double bed? I thought that was just a TV gimmick from the old days when they weren't allowed to show a man and woman in bed together. Did people really sleep like that, or was it just a production design decision for the film? The movie was made in the '80's after all.
Answer: It's most likely a reference to the twin-bed movie standards from the time in which the movie takes place (late '30s to early '40s).
Chosen answer: Many married couples did (and still do) sleep like this. For example, one may be a restless sleeper and not wish to disturb their partner. Or they may just prefer to sleep alone. It's all down to personal choice, I don't think there's a rule that says couples have to share a bed.
The original poster has never been married. It is seldom that husbands and wives continue sleeping in the same bed after the first couple years of marriage.
"Seldom" is a bit of an overstatement - studies seem to suggest about 15-25% of couples sleep separately.
Studies? Could you provide a link to such studies? I speak from decades of knowing many, many happily-married couples, the overwhelming majority of whom sleep in separate beds and even separate rooms.
15 per cent of Britons said if cost and space were not an issue, they would sleep in a different bed to their partner: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/uk-couples-sleep-separate-beds-partner-yougov-survey-a8504716.html. A 2005 National Sleep Foundation poll found that nearly one in four American couples sleeps in separate beds or separate rooms: https://sleepfoundation.org/sites/default/files/subscription/sub003.txt. Clearly many couples do, but many don't. Certainly the vast majority of couples I know share a bed, regardless of how long they've been together. "Seldom" is I think overstating it. The majority of people you know may sleep separately, and more power to them! No right or wrong, but that doesn't appear to reflect the broader picture.
Very interesting... I know of only one couple that sleeps in different beds. That is because they are on different sleep schedules. I know many couples and we all sleep with our spouses. Don't get me wrong, if we get a hotel room that has 2 full or queen beds, we are sleeping in individual beds. But other then that, we sleep in our bed together.
Answer: Very common, especially back in the first half of the 20th century, for couples to sleep in separate beds.
12th May 2004
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Question: In the scene where Neo fights the Frenchman's vampires, he is able to control some of the weapons on the wall and brings them to his hands. How is he able to do this, and why doesn't he just remove the weapons from his enemy's hands?
Answer: Neo has developed a form of telekinesis - the ability to move things with the mind - and uses this to bring the weapons to him. This is the same ability that allows him to stop bullets. As to why he doesn't simply take the weapons from his enemies, this would require tearing the weapons from their hands, which might be difficult - I don't think we ever see Neo using his telekinesis directly against sentients, so possibly he can't. Taking weapons from the walls, which won't put up a fight, and engaging the enemy in direct combat is an easier option.
Answer: Within the Matrix, Neo is manipulating the very computer coding that is the foundation of the cyber-world itself. Neo could not only stop bullets and fly, but he could at first erase or overwrite this coding at will, resulting in the instant destruction of his enemies (as seen in the first movie, when Neo overwrites Agent Smith's coding and utterly disintegrates him). The artificial intelligence of the Machine Mind, however, was constantly revising and self-correcting its code (as seen at the beginning of the second movie, when Neo realises the Matrix Agents are even stronger than before, and he muses, "Hm...Upgrade."). The Machine Mind was upgrading all the time, trying to keep up with Neo's abilities; thus, we see Neo still stopping bullets and defying cyber-gravity in the Chateau Brawl, but one of the Frenchman's baddies manages to actually injure Neo with a sword, drawing blood from his hand. This makes it apparent that Neo was always playing a game of chess with the Machine Mind for control of the Matrix code, and the Machine Mind sometimes got the upperhand. The Trainman's coding, for example, was unbreakable, and Neo was helpless against him in the Train Station scene. Outside of the Matrix, in the Real World, Neo's abilities are harder to explain, as they appear literally supernatural.
Answer: He is in a computer simulated world and is the chosen one because he can use his will to control and manipulate it, like moving objects and flying.
28th Dec 2018
Dances with Wolves (1990)
Question: I was wondering how the buffalo hunt was actually done. Were the buffalo actually shot (for meat or to cull the herd) or was there some computer graphics involved (I can see a truck running along side next to the cameraman with a tranquilizer gun to make the animal fall)?
Answer: While the fallen buffalo were furry dummies on wires (there were only a couple, filmed from several different angles), the buffalo stampede was real. A private herd of 3,500 buffalo in South Dakota was prompted to stampede five times, as seven cameras captured the action over eight days of filming. The illusion of arrows piercing the animals' sides was accomplished with simple special effects (including arrow shafts attached to body straps). The massive bull charging the little boy was a docile animal that was tempted with Oreo cookies. No animals were injured or traumatized in filming the scene; in fact, the only near-injury occurred when Kevin Costner himself (who did his own stunt riding) fell off his horse during the shoot. Https://ew.com/article/1991/03/08/filming-dances-wolves-stampede/.
Answer: I did a little Internet research. It does not appear that any bison were killed for the hunting scene. Dummy bison were mounted on moving dollies and yanked off by attached straps to look like they'd fallen. Two live domesticated bison were used for certain shots. I can remember watching one of those, "Making of..." TV documentaries on this movie. They showed realistic-looking bison dummies lying on the ground and compressed air being used to simulate the "wounded" animals' breathing. A tranquilizer gun could not have been used on live bison for this purpose. It's a misconception that animals immediately fall unconscious when darted because it takes time for the drugs to have an effect. Films in the past have actually killed animals for films, but they were often ones selected to cull a herd.
6th Jan 2016
Man of Steel (2013)
Question: During the tornado scene, Jonathan Kent rescues the dog, Hank, and in the process injures his leg. With the tornado practically on top of him, Jonathan then waves off Clark, who is only about 50 yards away. The fact that Jonathan waves off Clark is proof that they BOTH knew Clark could rescue his dad, but Jonathan didn't want Clark to expose his super powers. Still, it was Clark's DAD in danger. Why didn't Clark simply go rescue his father at super speed? Certainly, the chaos of the tornado would easily cover Clark's actions, and there would be no reliable witnesses in the midst of such confusion.
Answer: That, AND the fact that his dad is able to stand firmly on the ground whilst the tornado engulfs him, and we still see him standing to the very end as the debris in the tornado starts to hit him. That didn't make sense to me...correct me if I'm wrong, but tornadoes can and do pick up large objects like vehicles etc. and then toss them away WITHOUT the physical funnel of the tornado actually having passed over said objects. I thought once you're in the debris field, which is a separate thing from the funnel, you're already liable to be tossed up into the air and then flung out, but here, Jonathan remains standing on the ground unaffected the whole time, while the vehicle, being heavier than a human, had begun to float up in the air earlier when he went to get the dog, and then he remains standing even while the physical funnel begins to consume him - he should've been tossed up in the air long ago when the funnel was already within hundreds of feet of proximity to Jonathan.
It's certainly unrealistic but it was obviously an artistic choice. The fact that he is peacefully consumed by the funnel rather that violently tossed through the air was meant to be a poignant moment.
Answer: While I could think of several different scenarios that Clark could have done to save his dad without his abilities/powers being seen (that don't involve him moving so fast no-one sees him), ultimately (as Clark said), he let his dad die because he trusted him. "My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they'd reject me... out of fear. I let my father die because I trusted him. Because he was convinced that I had to wait. That the world was not ready."
Answer: At not point in either Man of Steel or Batman v Superman do we see Superman use speed of the type people have suggested while on the ground. The movie makes a point of outlining his abilities and some of their limits. For Clark to use that ability in that instance and nowhere else in the film would be inconsistent, so the conclusion must be that this version of the character does not have the ability to move in that manner. He might be fast-er than normal people, but not, "blink and you'll miss him fast" - otherwise it would always be an option for him throughout the film and it is not presented as such.
We know from Man of Steel that Clark is entirely capable of high-speed feats: He leaps from a crabbing boat at sea and swims to a burning oil rig easily 4 nautical miles away in a matter of not minutes but moments; and, in the logging-truck scene, Clark apparently wadded up a tractor-trailer so swiftly that nobody inside the bar, just a few yards away, heard a sound or felt an impact tremor. These were certainly acts of super speed; and Jonathan Kent certainly knew Clark could save him from the tornado, which is why he waved him off.
Next to that we see the same Superman in Justice League move at the same speed as Flash whilst on the ground.
Chosen answer: There were multiple witnesses under the bridge who may not have seen Clark, but would have seen Jonathan magically vanish and suddenly appear safe and sound a distance away.
3rd Dec 2018
Ghost (1990)
Question: After the subway ghost shows Sam how to move things, he gets angry at Sam's question about his death, making him kick a cigarette dispenser. After kicking the dispenser, why does the subway ghost suddenly not recognize Sam?
Answer: The subway ghost was a paranoid schizophrenic who committed suicide by throwing himself in front of the train. As a ghost, he still has extreme mood swings that range from denial to grief to anger and even violence, and he apparently suffers short-term memory loss, as well.
The subway ghost told Sam that somebody had pushed him.
As I said, the subway ghost was a paranoid schizophrenic who is in denial. He insists that he was pushed; but his odd insistence implies that he actually committed suicide.
3rd Dec 2018
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Question: Why is the title of this movie just "Raiders of the Lost Ark" instead of "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark"?
Answer: The original title was simply "Raiders of the Lost Ark" because George Lucas and Steven Spielberg didn't anticipate the lead character exploding into a cultural icon. After this first blockbuster film, they added "Indiana Jones and..." to the title of every sequel, and "Indiana Jones" became a marketing trademark for a deluge of licensed merchandise (most of which was directed at kids and young adults). Years later, in subsequent releases on Blu-Ray and DVD, Lucasfilm actually went back and retitled the first film "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark," in order to keep the collected films under the umbrella of the "Indiana Jones" trademark.
13th Nov 2018
General questions
There was a movie I rented a few years back. I don't remember exactly how long ago, but I know we got the film from RedBox. It was a space movie where this crew went to like a comet or something and landed on the surface. Some creature began messing with their minds I think and was living in the water beneath them. It pulled one of the crew below and ate him/her. I don't remember much else but at the end of the film there was one crew member left who was in the ship as it was sinking and the creature getting inside with them. I don't remember what happened after that. I'm wanting to know what the movie was called so I could find it again.
Chosen answer: You're describing the 2013 independent science-fantasy film "Europa Report," featuring Sharlto Copley (but mostly a cast of unknowns). Story of a manned space mission to one of Jupiter's moons, Europa, which theoretically contains vast oceans beneath its icy surface. The astronauts start seeing flashes of bio-luminescent light beneath the ice and realise that there is life on Europa; then, as you mentioned, everything goes disastrously sideways. This film was released to streaming services about two months before it was released in theatres in 2013. On a budget of less than $10 Million, the movie grossed a whopping $125 Million, with generally favorable reviews.
3rd Dec 2017
Justice League (2017)
Question: Bruce Wayne tells Clark that in order to get back the foreclosed Kent family farm, he bought the bank that owned it. Why didn't he just buy the house directly? It was for sale.
Answer: Bruce Wayne is not only rich and powerful, he's also dangerously vindictive. If you cross him or his friends, he'll pull the rug out from under you, at best, and destroy you, at worst. At the end of "Batman vs Superman," Bruce Wayne realises how horribly wrong he was about Superman; he even feels a kinship because both of their mothers were named Martha, and he was finally able to "save Martha" (something that had haunted Bruce Wayne for his entire life). I'm thinking, once Bruce Wayne discovered that Martha Kent's house was foreclosed, he acted to not merely save the farm but to punish the bank that foreclosed it. So he bought the bank and probably ruined a few financial careers in the process, out of sheer vengeance.
Answer: It was partly done as a joke. But it seems less likely that Bruce would just buy his friend a farm. What most likely happened is Bruce bought the bank and then in essence cancelled the foreclosure, turning the Kent farm back to Martha. Then Martha would continue making her mortgage payments to the bank.
Answer: Like all billionaires, Bruce Wayne wants to make more money. It's much more lucrative to buy an entire bank, and the foreclosure would be cancelled at the same time.
27th Nov 2018
Gilligan's Island (1964)
Erika Tiffany Smith to the Rescue - S2-E15
Question: I'm very confused about the ending. During an interview, the interviewer says that the Navy are unable to find the castaways because Erika's log book is written in English translated from Hungarian. If her log book was translated from Hungarian to English, then how could the Navy be unable to use it to find the island and rescue everybody? She left out latitude and longitude but, there must have been something in the log book to give an idea of where the island was.
Answer: Hungarian-to-English translation aside, Erika's log-book entries were utterly meaningless. When the radio interviewer expresses confusion, Erika even reads entries from the log: "You take a left at a big, beautiful, pink tropical flower, then pull over and park," and "After the storm, we backed up and made a U-turn," etc. Her directions were scatterbrained, to put it nicely. Additionally, Erika's yacht was forced to leave the island during a tropical storm, and they lost their bearings for several days before the Navy found them. Given that Erika was such a scatterbrain, we might also assume that she didn't hire the most competent yacht crew, either.
27th Nov 2018
Star Wars (1977)
Question: When Obi-Wan tells Luke about Darth Vader murdering his father, Luke doesn't seem to have heard of Vader before. But he knows about the rebellion and wants to go to the Imperial Academy (so he can defect later). Shouldn't he know who Vader is?
Answer: Not necessarily. The Empire is infamous, but that doesn't mean everyone will know who their higher-ups are. I know who the Ku Klux Klan are, but I couldn't tell you who their leaders are.
This. Or possibly, Luke knows who Vader is but just doesn't comment while Obi-wan is talking.
Answer: For most of his early life, Luke lived a simple, rustic life. His aunt and uncle knew his parentage and no doubt suppressed information about the Empire from him. Luke is naive and still has a limited and generalized knowledge of the rebellion, most of which was gleaned from talking to friends. He has little awareness of who the key players are.
Answer: Remember that Luke was hidden on Tatooine as a baby, and Obiwan also went into hiding there, presumably as a protector to keep Luke's very existence a secret from Darth Vader. It could be that Obiwan remotely exercised Jedi mind-tricks on Luke throughout his young life to block any curiosity about Vader.
26th Nov 2018
General questions
I just remembered seeing a trailer for a movie years ago that I was curious about but never got to see. I just can't remember the name of the movie or even who was in it now. I think it was either a late 90's film or an early 2000's film. And possibly Patrick Swayze was in it? I can't remember for sure. I may be getting it mixed up with Ghost. Anyways, I remember in trailer that this guy was able to see numbers on people's foreheads. And these numbers indicated when that person was going to die and who was next. Like the lower the number, the sooner they were going to die. I don't really remember much else about the trailer. Does anybody know what movie this was?
Answer: You may be thinking of the 1996 horror-comedy "The Frighteners," directed by Peter Jackson and starring Michael J. Fox, Jeffrey Combs, Dee Wallace, Jake Busey, and a host of others. Michael J. Fox plays a shady psychic medium (performing fake exorcisms for money) who starts seeing glowing numbers on people's foreheads shortly before they die under mysterious circumstances. Turns out it's the malevolent ghost of a mass-murderer (played by Jake Busey) who is still trying to get the "highest score" of victims, marking them with sequential numbers before he kills them. Michael J. Fox must engage in supernatural battle with Busey to stop the carnage. "The Frighteners" was a technically superior film that didn't do so well at the boxoffice but went on to become a cult classic.
Answer: There's an episode of "Medium", s06e09 "The Future so Bright", where Allison sees numbers on people's forehead that tells how long they have to live and all the dead people have "0" on their foreheads. It might not be what you're thinking, but maybe you can look into if "Medium" got the idea from the movie you're thinking of.
Answer: There is a 2012 short titled "Numbers" directed by Robert Hloz that premiered at Cannes Film Festival in which a young man sees numbers floating above people's heads and then meets a girl with the same ability (it's not in English and might not be what you're thinking of so I won't give away any spoilers). There is also a 2007 film, starring Nathan Fillion, called "White Noise: The Light" (sequel to "White Noise") where the main character has premonitions of when people are going to die and tries to save them. But he doesn't see numbers on their heads, as far as I know.
Unfortunately, "The Frighteners" is the only movie with that plot.
2nd Oct 2018
Hereditary (2018)
Question: After Peter is possessed by Charlie and he clicks his tongue for the first time after standing up, he starts to walk towards the tree house and heads off screen. The camera lingers though, and focuses in on something lying on the ground in the background. What is that on the ground? It almost looks like a dead dog or possibly the dead dear from earlier, but the shape isn't quite right. It does appear to be some sort of animal but I can't make it out. What is that the camera lingered on right then? And why? It's not shown again. (01:57:45)
Answer: Earlier in the film, Peter swerves the car to avoid hitting a dead animal in the road, resulting in Charlie's decapitation. That animal appears to be a goat (a ram) with slightly curled horns. Within the context of this movie, this is probably a Sabbatic Goat, alluding to Occult symbolism associated with the Mystic Pentagram and the Satanic deity Baphomet. The implication is that Satanic forces caused Peter to swerve off the road, killing Charlie in preparation for migrating her soul into Peter. The dead animal seen in the background at the end appears to be the Sabbatic Goat again, marking completion of Charlie's soul migration into Peter.
8th Aug 2008
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Doc Brown shows up at the end of part three with his wife Clara, his two boys, and a time-traveling, hovercraft-converted train. How did he build it? There was nothing in 1885 that could even begin to help him build another time-machine! And don't tell me that he used Marty's 'hoverboard' as parts, because that doesn't wash.
Chosen answer: Time machines don't actually exist, so who are we to say whether or not the parts to build another time machine are available? Doc Brown is an inventor. Doc had the knowledge of how to build a time machine having built the original machine into a DeLorean, Doc also appears to have had a few years to come up with a way of building a time machine into a train, given that he now has children who appear to be around 5 years old. Plus, remember that the fridge in Doc's shop was much bigger than a modern fridge, and a steam train is way bigger than a DeLorean.
Answer: Doc's consistent problem was finding high-energy power sources for his inventions. But, actually, materials and technology did exist in the late 19th Century to construct extremely high-energy components. If Doc Brown had contacted electrical geniuses of the day (such as Nikola Tesla, who was already working in high-energy physics, radio and and X-ray technology in the 1890s), he could have certainly acquired the materials to reconstruct the Flux Capacitor and back-engineer hover pads for his time-travelling locomotive. As we saw earlier in the film, he was quite capable of back-engineering 1980s electronics using 1950s components (when he repaired the DeLorean).
5th Nov 2018
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989)
Question: Why was Beethoven arrested? He wasn't doing anything illegal.
Answer: While it's not unusual for musicians to try out new instruments (playing a few rifts and even entire compositions) in a music shop, Beethoven's extended sampling-keyboard performance went wild, drawing an enthusiastic mall crowd into the relatively small music shop. The shop manager no doubt felt overwhelmed and called in mall security to clear out the shop before any damage and/or theft occurred. Keep in mind that the security team was already scrambling to respond to several simultaneous disturbances throughout the mall, all caused by 7 strangely-dressed oddballs (more than half of whom only spoke obsolete dialects and ancient languages). The time-travelers were, thus, probably all perceived as one group of pranksters or escapees from a mental institution.
26th Oct 2018
Alien (1979)
Question: Why would the company need a biological weapon and how would they use the alien as such?
Answer: The company is huge and diverse. Presumably it has a weapons division. An alien creature might give their researchers something to investigate that was unknown to rival businesses.
Answer: The company is in the business of colonizing planets.Now if a rival company were doing the same thing the company could plant an alien on the planet to wreak havoc and make it inhospitable, therefore making their own planets more desirable and ultimately more profitable.A ruthless tactic but the company is ruthless.
I like this answer the best.
Thanks Lionhead.
Answer: The nefarious "militarization" of newly-discovered properties (both earthly and otherworldly) is a common and predictable sci-fi and space-fantasy subplot that is so overused that it has become cliché. Usually, the specific military application is never actually revealed. It's really recycled social commentary, implying that humanity is so materialistic and ruthless that WE are the real "monsters," with no regard for Life (human or otherwise) in the natural world. This creates a dual threat within the movie, with the hero and/or heroine providing the only moral compass between a sensational alien confrontation and an even more terrifying human menace.
26th Oct 2018
Arrival (2016)
Question: Why is it that the aliens, who obviously possess technology and intellect far beyond humans, didn't think to use their pictographs to communicate right out the gate? We had to wait for Amy Adams and her dry erase board?
Answer: The Heptapods' "present" encompassed about 6000 years of our human past, present and future. So, they perceived 3000 years of our past and 3000 years of our future simultaneously. It's a confounding idea to humans, but the Heptapods already knew, 3000 years in advance, that Louise was the critical contact for the evolution of communication between our species. For the Heptapods, there was no coincidence or impatience or blind luck; they already knew exactly when and how to start communicating with her.
Answer: The aliens don't see time in a linear fashion but all of time at once, meaning they can see the future, which is why their writing is like it is. They therefore knew Louise (played by Adams) would be the one to figure out their language and had to wait for her, or simply chose to wait for her.
11th Oct 2018
V for Vendetta (2005)
Question: Why did Finch get upset when Creedy brought up his mom being a prisoner at some facility?
Answer: It is implied that Finch's mother (and, indeed, his whole family) was actually killed during the Norsefire Party's genocidal rise to power several years earlier. Although both Creedy and Finch are now members of the Norsefire Party, Creedy suspects that Finch may still harbor a grudge against the Party and is, therefore, untrustworthy. In this scene, Creedy is needling Finch about his mother's death, attempting to provoke an angry response. Creedy is testing Finch's loyalty.
24th Jun 2004
Contact (1997)
Question: If you read the book version of Contact you know that the stuff about transcendental numbers and the Artist's Signature was left out of the movie. This makes no sense to me, since it's not only the real ending, it's the whole POINT of the story. Without this information, the story's fundamental question (does God exist?) is not answered in the movie. Does anyone know why this was left out?
Answer: If anything, I think the film's producers deliberately left godly topics unaddressed (and questions dangling, unanswered) because they didn't want to alienate any particular audience. However, we know the producers of "Contact" certainly did vilify religion through the sinister scenes with Joseph, the evangelical extremist. At the same time, the film created empathy for the president's glib theological adviser, Palmer Joss. So, I don't think the film was shying away from religious topics, and I think it was pretty fair to the religious viewpoint, for the most part. But this movie wasn't about religion; it was about a primitive, materialistic, self-centered and aggressive species (humanity) reluctantly acknowledging the existence of vastly more intelligent and even godlike entities throughout the cosmos. Even the first-contact entities, advanced as they are, acknowledge other entities much more ancient and much more advanced (the virtual architects of the space/time conduit). The implication was that we live in a universe that may be populated with many intelligent entities that answer every human criteria of godhood. Ellie's narrow-minded atheism was surely shaken to its foundation by her experience; and, while she didn't "convert" to archaic earthly religions, she was spiritually a different person upon her return. The film, however, is open-ended and fence-straddling and doesn't presume to definitively answer the question of the existence of god, leaving it up to the audience to decide.
Answer: The film chooses to focus on Ellie's personal journey and how she deals with and comes to terms with what happens - it doesn't really involve God at all, other than the inclusion of Palmer Joss as a religious advocate, choosing to restrict itself to the much less theologically controversial theme of a straight first contact scenario, without the religious overtones. Given the depth of feeling on religious matters in the US, it's hardly surprising that the filmmakers preferred to leave this particular hot topic out. While Carl Sagan died during production of the film, he both co-produced and was involved in the story process, so he was clearly not concerned about this change.
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: Old-Biff first comments on the flying DeLorean "I have not seen one of those in 30 years", then he sees what he believes to be two McFly Jr.'s and gets even more suspicious, next he spies on Doc and Marty having an argument about the almanach and how Doc is opposed to time travelling for personal gain! What else does he need to know? And lastly: We're talking about a time machine here! Old-Biff could have stolen it, kept it for how ever long it took him to figure out how it works and returned it at leisure. We don't even have any proof for the days he picked to departed from 2015 or to arrive in 1955. The only verified date is his return from Nov 12 1955 06:38 pm.