TedStixon

Answer: There isn't much of a feasible in-movie explanation. In truth, the entire scene was added by the director because he felt the movies were pretty sexist in that it was mostly women who were either nude or sexualized. Thus, he added an inherently homo-erotic sequence involving one man shaving another stripped man to "level the playing field" so-to-speak. The only real explanation I could think of is that maybe the creature just thought it'd feel uncomfortable transferring to a man with a mustache. But even that's shaky at best.

TedStixon

Answer: When we see him unmasked as a child, he looks sort of shocked but also vacant - he's staring off into nothingness... this was the moment when he lost his mind and became evil. I think the look on his face was meant to convey that he had simply snapped and was no longer "there." When he's unmasked as an adult, he didn't really look angry to me... he simply looked empty and expressionless. I think it's meant to show that he's no longer really a person... he's totally gone. There's nothing left but almost instinctive evil.

TedStixon

Answer: This movie has been deemed as the true sequel to the first Halloween movie in 1978 as it ignores Halloween 2 which was released in 1981 and all other Halloween movies after. Although Michael did wear the clown mask when he was a child, when he escaped from Smith's Grove Sanitarium as an adult, he walked into a convenience store and stole the iconic mask that he wore while killing people. Remember, this is happened in the 1978 film and all other Halloween movies up until this point were ignored so after Aaron shows Michael the mask that he used in the killing 40 years ago, Michael realises that mask was his and killed Aaron and Dana both to get it back.

Answer: You may wanna rephrase this question, because the wording doesn't really make sense as-is, and it's unclear about which movie you're even referring to. You seem to be asking a question relating to the reboot, but it's classified under the questions for the 2018 sequel to the original, so it's hard to tell which of the two movies you're talking about. If you're referring to the 2007 reboot and how Michael recognizes the mask he digs up when he escapes the sanitarium, it's because his sister's boyfriend wore the mask, and he also stole and wore it for a few minutes during the murders. If you're referring to the 2018 film and how Michael recognizes the mask Aaron holds up, it's because it's the same mask he wore 40 years earlier in the original film.

TedStixon

Answer: To me it sounds a lot like a Tie Fighter flyby, also been used in a few movies for various different things.

ScottytooHotty

Answer: Funnily enough, it is actually often referred to as the "Howie Scream," in reference to this film, which famously used it. It's a stock sound effect that's been in use since at least 1980. It's also referred to as "Screams 3; Man, Gut-Wrenching Scream and Fall into Distance," which was presumably the title of the track in the music library it's from.

TedStixon

Answer: The implication is that Jeff will still be teaching at Greendale after Annie and Abed leave. As for who became vice dean? It's never shown, since it's not really important to the series.

TedStixon

Answer: Serenity spins around as it skids across the ground...so the front of the ship is now facing the Reaver ship.

Answer: In a meta "behind the scenes" context, Michael was more or less intended to basically be the pure, simple personification of evil. He's basically the closest thing there could be to a "real life boogeyman." Choosing not to have him speak was a way for the filmmakers to keep his evil "pure" and simple. He has no real personality or motivation - he simply does evil things for the sake of doing them. His actions speak for him, so to speak. It is also arguably frightening to imagine why someone who could speak would choose not to. In terms of the movies themselves, it's never really 100% explained. It's implied that he stopped speaking and basically lost all traces of humanity after killing his sister. The closest we get to any sort-of direct explanation is in the 2018 sequel that "Halloween" creator John Carpenter approved and produced, in which Dr. Sartain clarifies that Michael can speak, but simply chooses not to for reasons unknown.

TedStixon

Answer: Not sure why you submitted this question for the eighth film in the series. But regardless, that's just a bit of what's called "retroactive continuity," which is a term for when a movie either changes or ignores things from previous films. Rather than having the box be in the cement floor, it was relocated to a cement pillar. This change was presumably just because the writer or director thought it would look more dramatic for it to be ripped out of a pillar as opposed to being just dug up from the floor.

TedStixon

Answer: To my knowledge, "Rush Hour 3" is supposed to take place roughly 10 years after the first movie, given she's all grown up and is around 20/21 years old.

TedStixon

Answer: At the end of "Rush Hour 2", Isabella is heading to New York. Lee and Carter then decided to go to New York too. At the beginning of "Rush Hour 3", when Carter is talking to Lee, Carter says Lee is still mad at him because of what happened in New York. He then says, "It was 3 years ago." Lee brings up Isabella, indicating it was the same New York trip. This is the only indication the film takes place roughly 3 years after the first one, but just seems to be a mistake. When Geneviève takes off her wig and Carter thinks she's a man, he says, "I'm Brokeback Carter." "Brokeback Mountain" was a 2004 film, so more than 3 years have passed.

Bishop73

Answer: I'd seen the movie a lot growing up and also just picked up the new Blu-Ray. As I remember seeing it when I was younger, and indeed in the new Blu-Ray, Ronnie is recruited on the group's second attempt to rescue Eric. He was never there the first time around. Admittedly, the line about "why lose five lives when you can gain four" is confusing given there's only four kids. But I always assumed he was referring to the four kids and Maurice, who he also has held captive.

TedStixon

Answer: You see Brian go down with Kiersten and Todd armed with their first set of flashlights. He then says this line because he wants to keep the four kids there and turn them into monsters. But he could kill them and my guess is maybe kill Maurice as well because he didn't succeed in turning Brian into one of them.

Answer: They went back to rescue Brian's younger brother Eric. Ronnie was there after Maurice went and got him to come and help. So the five lives refers to the four kids and the one that he stole which was Eric.

Answer: Murray Franklin is loosely based on Johnny Carson. He can also be seen as sort-of a general reference to nighttime talk-show hosts. Robert De Niro has also said he played the character as a bit of an homage to his character Rupert Pupkin from the 1982 film "The King of Comedy." (Though he stresses they are not meant to be the same character).

TedStixon

Answer: It's not really explained, but I think we are just supposed to assume that Venom didn't completely burn up. Enough of him survived that he was able stay bonded with Eddie and live.

TedStixon

Answer: Is it "Big Business"? That film stars both Midler and Tomlin and features "Higher Love."

TedStixon

Answer: We are to presume they are extended family members and/or associates of the family that we simply didn't see in the original film.

TedStixon

Answer: The movie doesn't provide any reason why he targets the three girls, which I think is a wise decision, but you can interpret that Myers chose those three because of Annie's "Speed kills!" wisecrack. It was enough to get him to stop the car. Good enough reason as any.

Answer: (1) In the context of the movie, no. Michael is, as Loomis puts it, "purely and simply evil." He pretty much picks the girls as a target seemingly at random after Laurie drops the keys off at the Myers house. While future movies tried to provide him with a reason (such as saying Laurie is Michael's sister in "Halloween 2"), in this movie, it's pretty much just because Michael is a psychopath and they just so happened to become his target. That's part of what makes him so scary in this film. (2) The mask was picked by the filmmakers because it was the most unsettling. (A clown mask was also considered.) It also had the added bonus of having a vacant, emotionless face that also happened to reflect Michael's vacant, emotionless state. (3) Michael is a psychopath and simply decides to kill all of the girls and save Laurie for last for reasons unknown.

TedStixon

Answer: The only answer I could find online was that it was changed simply because "Miss Collins" was easier to pronounce/remember. It's also worth noting that it's really not all that uncommon for movie adaptations to alter and rename characters. Especially supporting characters. Given there are some other changes to the character in the movie, renaming her could have also been a way to distance her more from the character in the original book.

TedStixon

Answer: Remember, the world of Jumanji operates on video-game logic in the context of the film. And in video-games, there are usually "safe areas," while hazards are often usually allocated to specific contained areas for the sake of creating dramatic gameplay. Something like mosquitoes, which are a character's weakness, might only appear in a few specific spots in the "map" of the game. So there's a very real chance he may not have encountered them because he just hadn't been in the part of the game map where they're located before.

TedStixon

Answer: They're in a video game, not real life, so it's possible mosquitoes are only in certain sections. Otherwise his character would be pretty doomed.

Brian Katcher

Answer: Also, his in game time was only a couple of months, not 20 years like in the real world.

Answer: I think it's really up to the viewer to decide. I personally always took it as she simply snapped and briefly lost her mind and became just like her uncle for an instant. But given she and Michael share a psychic connection in the sequel, I've seen other people suggest that perhaps she was under his "influence" in some way.

TedStixon

Answer: Rachel probably doesn't want to ruin his whole Halloween night by making him a third wheel. She likely figures they can just reschedule and he can find other stuff to do since it's a holiday. There's also the chance they had other certain "things" planned that they couldn't do around Jamie.

TedStixon

Answer: You could argue that Laurie is "unfinished business" for Michael, since she escaped him years ago. But it's important to note that in the movie, Michael doesn't seem to be going after her specifically at first. He arrives in town and just begins to start randomly killing people again. He doesn't really go after Laurie until the doctor specifically drives him to her neck of the woods, because he (the doctor) is obsessed with the idea of Michael and Laurie encountering each other again. So there is also the chance that she wasn't really Michael's target at all. I think it's kind of purposely left ambiguous what Michael's "goals" are in the film. As for the second question, it's answered in the opening scene - he's been at the hospital to be studied. But the state has lost interest in the case since no real developments have occurred. So rather than wasting more time/resources on him, they're instead dumping him into a maximum security facility where he'll basically be left to rot.

TedStixon