Question: Is there any indication as to where the aliens come from and what exactly they want?
Charles Austin Miller
19th Mar 2009
War of the Worlds (2005)
Answer: Maybe they were waiting for us to get up to a very high number in population. Before, we didn't have over 7 billion people in the world. More people, more food.
Answer: All versions of "War of the Worlds" are based on the novel of the same name written by H.G. Wells and published in 1897. Wells explained that the aliens are from the planet Mars, and they came to Earth for the natural resources.
But that still doesn't answer why did they wait till then to attack when they could have done it years ago with less resistance. The natural resources were still here.
Perhaps the Martians considered the technological advances of Mankind as "resources," also. The prologue states that the Martians had been observing humanity on Earth for a long time before they chose to attack. Why? Possibly observing our advances in engineering (dam building, for one example, mining for another). It could be viewed that the Martians allowed us to perform the hard work of making natural resources more accessible and consolidating those resources. Personally, I always thought the Martians intended to come exploit the fruits of our labor, allowing us to advance as far as we could without becoming a physical threat to them. If the Martians had waited a few decades more, they could be dealing with a technologically-dangerous human species.
Maybe they were still building the tripods, and when they finished, they would bury them in the ground. Then wait for the Earth's population to grow.
Answer: The alien homeland is never described in the film, but is described in the script as a lifeless, barren place, unfit for life.
29th Jul 2018
Deepwater Horizon (2016)
Question: What blew the door to Mike's workshop off its hinges?
Answer: That was the initial gas blow-out, prior to the explosion. Pressurized gas was coming out of the drill pipe with sufficient force to tear the place apart, even before it ignited.
What caused the gases to ignite?
Gas blowouts are notorious for igniting themselves. The vast quantity of gas and particulates, expelled under high pressure, create an electrostatic charge in the gas cloud that arcs to the nearest grounding point. It's like shuffling across a carpet and then touching a metal doorknob: a tiny electrostatic spark is created. Such a tiny spark is all that is necessary to ignite a cloud of petroleum gas.
23rd Jun 2009
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: What exactly is the lightning the aliens use to get inside the tripods? How does it work?
Answer: For this film, the Martian tripods were already buried deep in the Earth's surface, lying dormant for thousands of years (or more) and only waiting for the actual Martians to arrive. When they did arrive, the Martians did not "teleport" into the tripods, but they were carried down in high-velocity capsules. Fairly early in the movie, a television news crew captures video footage of lightning striking the earth; upon replaying the footage in slow-motion, the TV crew can actually see these high-velocity capsules (containing the Martians) riding down the lightning stroke and into the ground. Therefore, the lightning probably served a dual purpose: It physically bored shafts into the ground directly to the tripods; it then served to guide the high-velocity capsules to the tripods.
Chosen answer: Impossible to answer, there's no indication onscreen as to how.
Actually the movie does explain how the beam works but as for what it's made of? Who knows.
Answer: I'm sure that's their teleportation beam.
Except that, if the Martians possessed extremely advanced matter-energy teleportation technology, they could have destroyed the entire human population without the Martians ever setting foot on the earth.
29th Sep 2010
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: It's been stated that Elsa and Donovan knew how to get through the path to the Grail because Henry was talking about the way as he lay dying. But I'm still confused about when they get across the cliff. Indy threw some sand and stones across the path he 'believed' was there, but would they still be sitting there, basically in mid air for the bad guys to get across? Did they truly believe in the Grail as much as Indy and Henry did and so could walk across the non-existant path?
Answer: The bridge was actually camouflaged into rock looking as if it was invisible (you can see this in movie).
Of course, any "camouflage" would only work from one perspective (from the doorway at one end of the bridge). As soon as Indy took a step out onto the bridge, the "camouflage" would be revealed, as it would no longer be aligned to the background from his new perspective. Viewed from the opposite end of the bridge, the "camouflage" wouldn't work at all and the bridge would be perfectly visible.
Not necessarily. They could have fashioned the stonework so it rendered the bridge invisible from both directions.
Chosen answer: The way I see it, the bridge is there, but is invisible. The true test is to step out into mid-air when you don't know there's a bridge there, trusting in God to rescue you. Indy passed this test, then threw the stones to see whether it really was a bridge there all along, or if it was a matter of faith in the moment you step out (or just to mark his way back). The pebbles stayed, proving the bridge was physical and real, only invisible. When Ilsa and Donovan came along, they could see the pebbles in mid-air, and figured out this as well. Originally, you would have to believe and trust in God to step on to the bridge, but Indy effectively "disarms" this trap by proving that there is a way to cross safely for anyone.
As stated previously, the bridge is not invisible. It is simply camouflaged so that it's not visible from the position Indy had to stand. This is demonstrated in the film when the camera angle changes and shows that the reason Indy can't see it is the marbling of the stone lines up perfectly from one angle. He throws the pebbles onto it once he's across to make it easier for him to see when he returns.
But the camouflage is only going to work from one direction (the approach). Going in the opposite direction (the retreat), the bridge would stand out like a sore thumb, pebbles or not.
However, in the film, Indy turns around and throws the pebbles on the bridge, which is not visible until the pebbles are there.
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the original builders altered the vertical stone walls in the "coming back" direction so that the bridge blended from this reverse perspective as well.
Okay, he didn't actually mean invisible, more like "invisible from a certain perspective"
20th Mar 2018
Justice League (2017)
Continuity mistake: When Superman is explosively resurrected by the MotherBox, it disintegrates the clothes and shoes in which he was buried, but he's still wearing pants immediately afterwards.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It disintegrates most of his clothes. What he's left with are the pants he was buried in.
So, the gigantic blast vaporized his shirt, tie, jacket, shoes and even socks, but didn't affect his pants at all? Seems unlikely.
Well although I agree you gotta know that the obvious reason for this is that they didn't want them fighting a naked Superman. He is still wearing the same pants as he was buried in though, not suddenly wearing different pants. On the other hand it would have been more logical for Superman to be naked for a second or so, then in the next scene wearing something which he got from anywhere in the city in a split second. Unfortunately for the movie makers they show him wearing them as he shoots up from the building, and it's the same pants so the plausibility gets quite lost. It's not a continuity mistake though.
Whether it's plausible or not is debatable, but the original mistake claimed his pants changed. The correction is that they're the same pants he was buried in.
Suggested correction: It's never verified that his clothes and shoes were "disintegrated." He could have removed them because they were likely tattered from blasting through the roof.
True, but it's semantics? Vaporized, tattered, sliced into cubes or deep fried, the crux is still that his magic pants are intact and the rest isn't. I mean, it's pretty obvious like lionhead said in his comment, why it happened; modesty reasons. Some (not me!) might consider pedantic or too obvious to point out such an event that falls generally under the suspension of disbelief category, however it's a fact.
28th Aug 2018
Deadpool 2 (2018)
Question: In the first timeline ending, Russell (Firefist) is not convinced or changed by Deadpool's pleading; in fact, he casts Deadpool aside. Cable then lunges for the semi-auto handgun and takes his last shot, which is intercepted by Deadpool in his left chest (a fatal wound). Seemingly, the only thing that really changed Russell's mind was Deadpool's actual death scene, as Deadpool rambled on with his farewells and gradually faded away. But, in the alternate ending, Cable goes back in time a few minutes and uses an arcade token to stop the bullet that killed Deadpool; thus, Deadpool doesn't die from the gunshot and Russell doesn't react to Deadpool's farewells (that never happened). So, what event changed Russell's mind the second time, if not Deadpool's actual death?
Answer: His change of heart came from Deadpool's sacrifice. In the second timeline, Cable saves Deadpool, but Deadpool had no way of knowing. Firefist still has a change of heart because Deadpool was willing to sacrifice himself, even though he was ultimately saved by someone else.
Now, I can accept that in theory, except that Russell repeatedly saw Deadpool putting his ass on the line to rescue Russell. I mean, Russell knew from the very beginning that Deadpool could have killed him (but chose not to) and took some severe ass-beatings on Russell's behalf. Russell was really, really hard-boiled, and I'm not seeing that Deadpool almost getting killed as enough impetus to change Russell's heart. It seems (to me, anyway) it was Deadpool's actual death that changed Russell, such that a mere deflected bullet would not have the same effect.
Deadpool saving Russell in the film is what made Russell think that they were friends. When Deadpool tells Russell that they aren't friends, he remains hostile toward Deadpool, not believing him when he later admits to caring for Russell. At this point Russell is too far gone and will kill. However, it's only when Deadpool takes a bullet for Russell, fully intending to die in both timelines, that Russell sees that Deadpool really does care about him, and would have died to save him.
Answer: In science fiction there are two different ideas regarding time travel. In one, the timeline is fixed, so a person who goes back in time does what already happened in their own past, like in The Time Traveler's Wife - however, this is where the grandfather paradox comes in. The other theory as express in the Back to the Future series is the past can be changed and in so doing change the future for the person who changed it. Deadpool 2 follows the second concept, so Firefist doesn't need any motivation to go back the second time and in fact doesn't go back a second time since the timeline is already corrected and that doesn't present a contradiction.
It presents the contradiction that Deadpool's actual death broke Firefist's cold heart the first time; but the second time Deadpool doesn't die, so Firefist should have no change of heart.
"Except that Russell repeatedly saw Deadpool putting his ass on the line to rescue Russell." Yes, but there's a huge difference between risking your life to save someone and directly sacrificing yourself. Doing something that could get you killed and doing something that will definitely get you killed are entirely different. You may not agree with the change of heart, but that's how it's presented.
Answer: The Firefist the second time around is the one from the first who jumped back in time retaining those memories, and therefore remembers the events from the first time, just like he remembers to place the token to stop the bullet and remembers that he used the device a second time. He doesn't need to experience the death twice to have the change of heart remain.
7th May 2018
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: Do we know the human casualties by the end of the war?
Answer: No such numbers are ever discussed in the novel or in the subsequent radio and movie treatments. What we may surmise, however, is that the human casualties were comparatively minor. Once the Martians were exposed to earthly microbes, they were wiped out pretty quickly.
Voiceover by Morgan Freeman at the end of the movie: by the toll of a billion lives.
Morgan Freeman says "By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms." He is saying that Mankind evolved with microorganisms for countless generations on Earth, making Mankind immune to most of those microorganisms. Perhaps a billion humans or more died of bacterial and viral plagues throughout human history; but, as a species, we gained immunity. Freeman's quote has nothing to do with the number of Martians that died because they had no immunity.
Answer: The ending dialog states a death of 1 billion.
The billion deaths spoken of don't refer to those that died in the alien attack but the billion deaths from the microorganisms that killed the aliens. "By a billion deaths man earned his immunity."
I feel that he meant that the organisms that killed the aliens killed a billion humans first before we got our immunity from them.
They are saying that.
Exactly.
9th Aug 2018
Lord of the Flies (1963)
Question: One of the boys, called Piggy, wears glasses. Piggy's glasses become an important, prized object, because the boys can use the lenses to refract the sun's rays, and thus start fires. It is fairly well established, that, on a hot day, in bright sunshine, one can focus the sun's rays through a magnifying glass to set light to combustible material. (I've done it myself, although it took me rather longer than the book or film suggested, and it only made a very small flame.) But could you use spectacles, that people wear to correct defective vision, to start a fire in this way? Surely, if this was possible, wouldn't it mean that when people who wear glasses went out in hot sunny weather, then they would burn their eyes?
Answer: The key factor there is the focus of the light over distance. The light coming through the glass is refracted and focused on a single point. But it's bent like a ribbon. There is a "sweet spot" so to say where you have to hold the magnifying glass or lens at just the right distance and angle from the object to focus the center point of the light on it. Typically, this means holding the glass out a good several inches or even a foot or so away from what you wish to ignite to get the focal point of the light on it. Someone wearing glasses has them pretty much right up to their face. And so the light can't reach a focal point. Also keep in mind that for focusing the light through a lens, it needs to be angled just right for the light to go through it at the optimal angle and focus. Usually this means facing the sun directly. Typically people don't look up directly at the sun, at least not for more than a second. Especially with glasses on.
Answer: Only convex magnifying lenses can be used to focus the sun's rays in such a way as to start a fire. A convex magnifying lens is bowed outwards on both sides. Such lenses are found in magnifying glasses, binoculars and cameras, for examples. Conventional spectacles to correct vision are convex on one side and concave (bowed inward) on the other side, and so cannot be used to start fires. If Piggy's glasses are used to start fires, then he is wearing convex magnifying lenses (which would only be useful for up-close reading purposes, and they would be utterly useless for any other vision correction) ; and, if indeed he is wearing truly convex magnifying lenses for some reason, then his retinas could certainly be damaged by even glancing at the sun.
Answer: Lenses for nearsightedness would not work, but they could be corrected for the purpose by filling their concave areas with clear water, which would make the whole object correctly refract sunlight.
That's a reported "survival" trick (placing a drop of clear water in the center of a concave lens so as to focus the sun's rays) ; but I've never had any success with it.
27th Aug 2001
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Plot hole: If Old Biff changed his past and went back to 2015, he goes back to HIS future, not the bad future, but Doc later tells Marty that if he were to go to the future to stop Biff from taking the almanac, he'd go to the bad future, so Old Biff technically shouldn't have been able to return to "his" future at all.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The effects of the past being altered may not have happened immediately. It is possible that it took time for the timelines to adjust to the changes of events, meaning enough time would have passed to change 1985 when they return, but not enough time could have passed to change 2015. By the time Doc says if they went back to 2015 they would be going to an alternate future, some time has passed, so the effects of the past being altered and taking ahold in 2015 and altering it are more likely to have occurred by then.
Here is what you say: "perhaps it took time for the time lines to adjust." What kind of time would timelines take? Time is time, it doesn't take time to change the timeline. That doesn't make any sense. Some people claim it was the DeLorean itself that came back to its own original timeline and only then reset itself in the new one, but then the new timelines being erased later on wouldn't have happened either. So its a genuine plot hole.
It's established in the first film that it takes time for the changes to take effect. Marty and his siblings slowly disappear from the photo, rather than instantly. Although the scene in BTTF2 was deleted, it was filmed showing Biff dying and slowly fading away after his return to his present.
Yet they were restored instantly without any outside influence at the end of the movie. There are a lot of things wrong with this movie and the first one. Old Biff disappearing should mean that Marty and Doc should slowely disappear as well, even the DeLorean. But they didn't, that doesn't make any sense. The point is there is a plot hole, somewhere. To know where all you can do is look at it logically and then you automatically come up with Old Biff going back to the future but not the alternate future. If he did there wouldn't have been a movie, but that's the plot hole.
The timeline didn't change until he made his first bet which was some years I think after receiving it. He immediately travelled forward after giving the act, meaning he will still jump forward to the original future.
The timelines would instantly change, and Old Biff couldn't possibly have returned to "normal" 2015. It's just a poorly-thought-out time travel plot hole (or a deliberate error to expedite the storyline).
Suggested correction: In context, Doc was saying that they couldn't return to 2015 to stop Biff from stealing the time machine, because Biff didn't steal the time machine in the alternate 2015, he only stole it in the original 2015. Marty and Doc didn't stay long enough in 2015 after Biff returned, and that's why they didn't see any differences. Also, though they were unaware of it, Biff was dead in the alternate 2015, so the disasters he caused might have reverted back after his death.
20th Aug 2018
Ghost (1990)
Other mistake: At the time Sam is shot his soul separates from his body, indicating that he dies, but in the next shot the ambulance is carrying him to the hospital in order to help him.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If paramedics think there might be a chance to save someone they will continue treatment until a doctor has made the call to stop. Just because the paramedics continued to try to save him doesn't mean he hadn't already died, just that they were not yet willing to give up.
I've seen Emergency Medical Technicians and County Coroners call "dead at the scene" many times, without any attempt to resuscitate. In Sam's case, in this movie, he certainly seems to be dead, just a moment after the gun discharges.
18th Aug 2018
The Shape of Water (2017)
Corrected entry: In the film it is advised that the creature be maintained at 5 - 8% salinity. The sea is only around 3.5%. It seems odd that he should need so much salt.
Correction: The film states he's not from the ocean. He's from a specific, presumably fictional, area of the Amazon where he was worshiped as a god. We can simply assume the area has water with a higher salinity level than ocean water. (As there are places around the world that have water with significantly higher salinity levels than ocean water).
Those bodies of water on the earth's surface with much higher salt content are invariably isolated lakes and inland seas that were formerly connected to the oceans in the distant past. Such high-salt lakes are the result of many millennia (even millions of years) of evaporation and reduction, which results in the nearby terrain becoming almost devoid of vegetation (due to the increasingly high alkalinity of the surrounding water table). So, you would expect to see near-desert-like conditions in the vicinity of isolated salt lakes and inland seas and virtually no large wildlife (except maybe migrating flamingos at certain times of the year). Point is, while there is evidence of "marine incursion" across the northern half of South America as far back as 14 million years ago (which did, in fact, produce the largest salt flats in the world at Uyuni, Bolivia), these salt lakes are very hostile and even toxic to complex life. Large animals, such as gill-people, simply couldn't have evolved there, with a saline content more than twice that of the ocean and virtually no food chain.
He's meant to be a river god, as confirmed by the director, who wrote: "It is a river God. It's not an animal. It's a river God in the Amazon. There was never another one." Therefore, it's entirely possible he survived in such a harsh environment and thrived.
8th Feb 2018
Hannibal (2001)
Question: Why did the pigs not attack Lecter when he picked up Clarice? They went straight for the fat guy handcuffed to his accomplice and also to Verger but by passed Lecter. I thought it might be a blood thing which is why Lecter picked Clarice up after she was shot but A - Lecter doesn't know anything about the pigs and B - Mason wasn't bleeding before he got eaten.
Answer: The implication is that the boars are afraid of Lecter, which is why they don't attack him - he shows no fear and exudes dominance.
Next to that the pigs are trained to attack anything that screams. Hannibal stayed calm and thus was ignored.
Didn't Verger describe the pigs (by mentioning their molars and incisors) to Lecter when he was first brought to Verger strapped to the dolly?
He also didn't scream or make noise to get their attention.
I'm inclined to agree here. The boars could sense that Lecter was the most savage predator in the pit, and the animals steered clear of him for that reason. Call it "professional courtesy."
Answer: The implication is that savage animals recognize Lecter as another, even more savage animal. Call it kinship. Lecter has the same effect on attack dogs.
Answer: Probably the same reason the Alsatian dog of Krendler didn't attack him either.
12th Aug 2018
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)
Deliberate mistake: Baron Munchausen sends his courier, Berthold, on a one-hour errand to procure a bottle of the finest Tokay from the imperial wine cellars in Vienna. Berthold returns with the bottle within the hour and (in one continuous wide shot) hands the bottle to Baron Munchausen, who then hands it to the Sultan, who effortlessly plucks the cork from the bottle with his fingertips and pours a glass for himself. But there is no way the Sultan could simply pluck out the cork with his fingertips in one move; this extremely valuable bottle of wine is visibly sealed (in every shot) with a thick, air-tight red wax. This wax must first be cut and peeled away to access the deeply-embedded cork, and the cork must then be removed with a wine key (corkscrew). The action of properly opening the bottle would have required more time than the entire scene itself; so, to expedite the flow of the shot, director Terry Gilliam deliberately chose to forego a proper uncorking.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You're ignoring the fact that the entire scene is a story the real Munchausen is telling from memory. There are many fantastic elements that do not hold with reality, like him riding his horse out of the window, falling several stories, and landing safety, or Adolphus being able to see and shoot to the other side of the world. The bottle is simply an example of Munchausen not adhering to reality.
In any event, the Sultan's effortless uncorking of the bottle was a deliberate mistake intended to allow a whole series of actions to occur sequentially in the single wide shot in less than 5 seconds.
Yet, at the end, Sally addresses Baron Munchausen directly and asks him the question that the audience has been wondering throughout the whole movie: "It wasn't just a story, was it?" The Baron solemnly shakes his head, affirming that he was telling the truth all along, regardless of how fantastic it sounded. This point is often missed by the movie's critics.
The point I raised wasn't that the Baron's story wasn't true, but rather that he embellished it.
6th Aug 2018
Dr. No (1962)
Question: Why did Bond and the others go to see the 'dragon' and even attempt to incapacitate it?
Answer: Bond suspected that Dr. No was collecting radioactive materials for his secret project to sabotage the American space program, and Bond suspected that heavily-guarded Crab Key was the center of Dr. No's secret operation. Bond knew that the "dragon" was just a mobile flame-thrower protecting the most vulnerable area of the island, and so he and the others deliberately targeted it (although they failed).
But they didn't need to seize it, did they? This whole scene appears to be 'forced' in order for Bond and the girl to be apprehended and Quarrel killed off (why didn't he just run?). It just doesn't seem right that Bond would attack an armored flame throwing vehicle with just a gun. The Bond I know would stealthily have followed it to the base, or even simpler, followed the tire tracks.
Well, it wouldn't be the first or last time Bond allowed himself to be captured in order to penetrate the heavy's inner-sanctum.
Answer: Well, Bond knew that dragons didn't exist and when he was proven correct, he attempted to halt the 'dragons' advance.
In what way did the dragon have the upper hand? They did not know where Bond and the others were. Bond and the other two could have simply stayed where they were and the dragon wouldn't be any threat to them. Even if the dragon did manage to find them, they could simply run deeper into the woods/cross a river so they couldn't be followed.
9th Aug 2018
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
Question: When Brian is about to be crucified, soldiers arrive with news of his release. The soldiers ask for Brian, and everybody shouts "I'm Brian." Is this a parody of the "I'm Spartacus" episode in the Kirk Douglas/Stanley Kubrick film of "Spartacus"? If so, would this support my feeling that Life Of Brian is primarily a parody of classical/biblical 'epic' films?
Answer: Actually, no, the primary goal of "Life of Brian" was not to parody biblical films. Terry Gilliam has stated that the "important" objective of the movie was "to offend a lot of people," particularly "Jews and Christians, because they're easy to push around." Gilliam further said that, at the same time, they were "very cautious not to offend Muslims, because they're the dangerous ones." Both Gilliam and John Cleese have also said that, while the Pythons took care to avoid blasphemy (not directly mocking Jesus of Nazareth, with whom the Pythons had no quarrel), they fully intended that the film be heretical (in defiance of Catholic Church doctrine and dogma). Make no mistake, "Life of Brian" is not supposed to be a lighthearted parody of biblical films; it's supposed to be a sharp stick in the eye to the Roman Catholic Church.
Answer: The scene is a parody of the scene in "Spartacus" (although they are saying "I am Brian" for completely different reasons.) However, the film is meant to be a satire on religion itself and not a parody of epic films. The Pythons did a lot of research to try and accurately portray 1st century Judea, which is why it may look like a biblical epic, but I can't recall any biblical epics they parodied. At the time it was considered blasphemous, and not a parody, and banned in several areas in the UK and some countries. Although the Pythons argued it's not blasphemy but heresy.
Answer: You are indeed correct. It is a parody of the "Spartacus" scene but mostly of religion.
Perhaps not so much a parody of "Spartacus" as a tribute to Stanley Kubrick. Monty Python writer Terry Gilliam was very much a fan of Kubrick films and became friends with Kubrick in the 1980s. Gilliam claimed that Kubrick had even spoken with him about making a sequel to Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" (with Gilliam as director). Chances are, the "Spartacus" allusion was part of Gilliam's contribution to the "Life of Brian" screenplay, a tip-o-the-hat to Stanley Kubrick.
6th Aug 2018
Mission: Impossible (1996)
Question: Why did Claire return to Ethan? Jim must have sent her but why? Ethan had been framed, why send Claire to potentially expose herself to IMF if found? Is it because: Max receives mail from Ethan, immediately contacts Job to say "What the hell man someone claims you sold me junk!" Now Job/Jim knows he didn't deliver the actual list so he already plans to have Ethan steal the real one for him. Or is that too far fetched?
Answer: Jim has not been paid (at least in full) yet. This is revealed in the conversation Ethan has with Max in the car. Payment was conditional on the disk passing all her safety checks, which she had not done yet (she had not even looked at it yet). There is no way Jim knew the NOC list was junk at this point in time. However, since Jim has not been paid yet for the NOC list, he might have been trying to play it safe, and have Claire just keep tabs. If things don't go as planned, he might have left Claire as she was expendable to him. Also it is unlikely Max contacted Jim (Job) to ask about the email from Ethan (pretending to be Job). Max at this point believes the two are the same person. She simply invites Job to come in and discuss further.
Answer: Sending Claire back to Ethan was a daring ploy to get on the inside of Ethan's confidence. It made no sense and was the least likely thing Claire would do if she was part of Jim's plan. Ethan could have killed her, but the ploy worked and Ethan was confused enough to let her live.
But why? Jim sells the list to Max and rides off into the sunset with Claire, or so he intends to. What does he gain from having someone on the inside initially? Ethan is screwed, Jim doesn't need to get all the juicy details of how he goes down. Later on it's beneficial for him to have Claire in place there, but initially it makes no sense. Before Ethan formulates any plan and before Max finds out the list is bad.
Jim knew the first NOC list was bad but used the failed raid as an opportunity to kill off a number of IMF agents who might otherwise thwart his plans. Jim still needed Ethan to procure the real NOC list, but this time using a reduced team that contained 2 moles (Claire and Franz). Jim knew that Ethan was the most capable agent, but wanted him under close scrutiny by Claire and Franz.
He knew it was bad? Then why did he give it to Max anyway? If Ethan hadn't warned her she might have been caught by Kittrdige. Are you saying Jim foresaw everything, I mean everything that Ethan would do? He went through with the embassy raid knowing it was a mole hunt in advance, knowing Ethan would later get the real one for him? What if Ethan had gone with Kittridge in the restaurant? I mean it's unlikely, but this whole scenario sees Jim leaving sooo much to chance. I find it more plausible that he did think he was getting the list in Prague and then adapted to the situation to use Ethan to get the real one. I mean if he really knew the list wasn't in Praque he could have saved himself the trouble and just hire a couple of disavowed agents to do the Langley job himself, just like Ethan did. He had Claire, Krieger and Luther. Yeah no Ethan, but I mean I'm sure he could have found someone else who is capable.
31st Mar 2017
El Dorado (1966)
Question: What was the mixture that Mississippi gave to JP Harra?
Answer: The prime ingredient was Ipecac, a nausea-inducing compound (still used today) which so inflames the stomach lining that it's impossible for the patient to hold anything down. Hot mustard in large doses has a similar effect. The other ingredients (croton oil, cayenne pepper, etc) acted as powerful laxatives, so the entire gastrointestinal tract is evacuated in short order. The gunpowder was a fantasy ingredient, no doubt, as gunpowder is known to cause gangrene of internal tissues.
Answer: It was an old folk remedy for a hangover. It was supposed to make someone unable to drink liquor for a short period of time. The fictional potion's ingredients were not specified.
The ingredients of Mississippi's hangover concoction are very surely in the scripted dialogue. Mississippi: "Johnny Diamond had a recipe. Let's see. Cayenne pepper, mustard-the hot kind, ipecac, asafetida, and oil of cloves or was it? No, it was croton oil." Bull: "Croton oil?! I'll be a suck-egg mule. You know what that mixture'll do to a fella?" Mississippi: "Guaranteed kill or cure." The final ingredient is gunpowder.
Answer: Croaking oil, gunpowder, hot mustard, ipecac, asafetida.
13th Jul 2017
General questions
When did purely percussive movie and television soundtracks become popular? What landmark movie or TV soundtrack set this percussive precedent?
Answer: Probably in the late 1990s or around the turn of the century and it was probably gradual as these things go. Sometimes its easier to use a specific song to set a specific mood (this started probably more so in the 1980s) as opposed to creating a new one but that being said, its generally up to a composer and the style of the film in question as to whether they use a percussion style soundtrack or a more traditional sounding one and there are relatively recent films that sound like they could be old school.
The earliest percussive soundtrack that I recall debuted in James Cameron's first "Terminator" film. While it did have a mournful and melodic synthesized musical theme, the soundtrack was punctuated in several places with industrial banging and thumping (typically when the Terminator was onscreen). This percussive presence was amplified and expanded in the second Terminator film; and, by "Salvation," almost the entire soundtrack was industrial noise. But I'm not sure that Terminator alone ushered in the percussive soundtrack.
25th Jul 2018
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Corrected entry: Doc could not have the copy of the pic of him and Marty at the clock of the tower, because Marty has it in the DeLorean when he comes back to 1985.
Correction: The technology existed in 1885 to produce duplicate copies of the same photograph. The photographer who took it would certainly be able to do so there and then. Even if that wasn't the case it's not a stretch that someone of Doc's abilities could manage it so that he and Marty could each have their own copy.
Correction: It's certainly possible that they got more than one photograph taken.
Correction: There are several instances of duplicate (doppelganger) items and characters in the same timeline throughout the BTTF trilogy. For example, the DeLorean itself exists two and even three times within the same timeline. Doc and Marty and Jennifer and Biff all exist as doppelgangers within the same timeline. So, a duplicate photograph should be no problem in a storyline riddled with such inconsistencies.
This is incorrect... there is only 1 Marty, 1 Biff, 1 Doc, 1 Jennifer and 1 DeLorean. Yes, multiple versions may exist at the same time but in no instance is there a copy of the original person or car. For example, in BTTF II in 1955 there are 2 Marty's at the dance at the same time but the 2nd newer Marty is the same Marty from BTTF I. There should only be 1 copy of the picture, on the other hand, because it has not (to the best of our knowledge) been time traveling. The only explanations (for it to not be a mistake and these are still guesses) could be that they had a second picture taken even though it might be an expensive and time consuming process or Doc Brown could have gone into the future and taken it from Marty and, therefore, the picture could exist twice in 1 time period.
The photo time-travels at least twice in BTTF3: Once with Marty in the DeLorean on the explosive return trip, and again a few moments later when Doc arrives in the steam-powered locomotive time machine. We can reasonably assume that there was another, time-erased meeting between Marty and Doc (possibly in the future) wherein Marty explained how the photo was destroyed, prompting Doc to go back to the Old West and procure the photo again. Same exact photo X2, same scene, just as there were multiple characters and vehicles in the same timelines.
30th Jul 2018
Men in Black (1997)
Corrected entry: The Arquillians threaten to destroy the Earth if they cannot retrieve the Galaxy. But where is Griffin's Arc Net Shield (MIB 3) which protects earth from alien invasions?
Correction: That arc shield was meant specifically for the Boglodites, not all alien species. Besides, the Arquillians aren't invading Earth, they just blow it up from orbit.
Correction: Griffin's Arc Net Shield did not exist in the first movie, nor in the second, because the Arc Net Shield was a plot device of the third movie only. There is little background continuity between the three films, so we cannot assume they share the same plot devices, especially in retrospect. One constant, however, was mentioned by Agent K in the first film: "There's always an alien battle cruiser, or a Corellian death ray, or an intergalactic plague intended to wipe out life on this miserable little planet. The only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they do not know about it!" In this way, director Barry Sonnenfeld set up a sequel universe in which there could be any number of independent threats against the Earth that the MIB simply addressed one at a time without overlapping plots. Multiple threats and appropriate defenses were seldom discussed but were just routine for the MIB.
There is continuity between the 3 films. Frank the Pug as a picture on J's wall. J complaining about false promises K made when he recruited him. The alien battle cruiser you mentioned. Why shouldn't there be no continuity? Who said MiB movies are standalone episodes?
I agree there is continuity. The supposed constant helps keep things small and reset them almost completely (same goes for the neuralizer), but that doesn't mean there is no continuity. Its also a fact J doesn't know a tenth of what K knows, including the existence of the arc shield.
My comment was "little or no background continuity," such that there are sequential references to Frank the Pug, et cetera. But MIB3 is its own story, and the first two films didn't anticipate or acknowledge the Arc Net Shield. That was purely an MIB3 plot device.
But it fits in the first 2 MIB movies just fine, so its irrelevant.
Well, by that reasoning, you could just as easily say that the first MIB film and MIB2 ceased to exist throughout most of the third film. Early in MIB3, Agent K was killed in Florida in 1969, he never launched the Arc Net Shield (so why didn't the Boglodites invade the Earth), Agent K never met J again in New York City years later, J never became an MIB Agent, et cetera, et cetera. Yet the present hardly changes at all after Agent K is killed in 1969. As long as we're "fitting" things together in retrospect, there are a LOT contradictions and continuity problems with the whole trilogy. Which is why I still think the trilogy is supposed to be a series of stand-alone films with no over-arcing continuity.
Nothing wrong with the timeline in that aspect. The Boglodites didn't invade earth until the present day, just hours after Boris escaped and killed K, that was the scheduled invasion, which would have failed had the shield been there (and killed off the boglodites). Without K someone else obviously recruited J, seeing his potential just as K did, as you might recall J was just an agent in the alternate present day and not seen as a stranger. Any other things that might have gone different we simply don't see in the little time we spend in the altered present day (before J goes back).
But Agent K did not just pick J "for his potential; according to MIB3, Agent K took the very young J under his wing, giving him a specific direction in life (probably spying on J regularly as he grew up, and intending to recruit J to the Men in Black. Assuming that J was always going to be an MIB agent (without K's intervention) is a pretty huge assumption. And then, of course, there's the matter of J being the only one who remembered K in the present. How did that work?
Again, even though K wasn't there to take J under his wing some other agent could have picked up on J's capabilities, its not that huge an assumption. J remembers K in the present because, according to Jeffrey, he was there, in the past his young self was present when the time change occurred and therefor he retains his original self (which is just a plot contrivance, but whatever, its a time travel movie).
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.
Chosen answer: In the original George Pal version they were Martians and the reasoning for what they were doing was never explained. In this version, it's never explained where they come from, but their mission is simple, to eradicate human life from Earth, and use our bodies to fertilise the planet, probably so that they can colonise the planet for themselves.
GalahadFairlight
If it was to eradicate us they could have done that millions of years back, why now, so that doesn't add up.
You want to grow the substance (people) that grows your food source before using it. If they waited too much longer, they'd have a harder time because we'd have the technology to fight them back.
The reason which was apparently provided by Wells was that Mars was dying by lack of natural resources and that Martians needed a new home and food source.
They were waiting until the population grew large enough to sustain terraforming efforts. As they used our bodily fluids seemingly as a primary material for their terraforming.
It's an assumption that they could have eradicated us millions of years ago (which by the way would be long before we even existed). Maybe they didn't have the ability to transport themselves, only the machines. Maybe the original aliens all died. Lots of other options why they couldn't have done it.
They probably needed to wait for us to produce enough humans to use as fertilizer. Doesn't make sense to try to use several million bodies as fertilizer back then vs now with billions of people.