Question: Why does this movie have so much product placement? And why did Jon put "Pepsi" and "Wendy" stickers on his train set?
TedStixon
15th Oct 2018
Garfield: The Movie (2004)
21st Sep 2018
Robocop 2 (1990)
Question: When RoboCop is being stripped, what is that thing Hob squirts him with before the scene cuts? And how many crazy directives does OCP give RoboCop after he's reprogrammed?
Answer: To answer the first question, it's some sort of tubing and fluid from inside of Robocop... so something like oil or something along those lines. Something that Robocop's robotic body uses to function. As for the second question, I do not believe it's ever mentioned specifically, but online searches say it's over 300 new directives. (Though we never see all of them).
21st Sep 2018
The Game (1997)
Question: How does CRS simulate the gunshots when they're "shooting" at them? They're supposed to be using blanks, but how did they get the bullet holes in the building, or in the car when they're driving away?
Answer: Presumably they're doing the same thing that movies do... using devices called "squibs." They are essentially small, relatively harmless explosive devices that can be used to simulate bullet impacts.
20th Sep 2018
Mouse Hunt (1997)
Question: What year does this movie take place?
Answer: There's not really an answer, because the film has sort-of a nebulous timeframe given its cartoon-like atmosphere. Ex. Everything is old fashioned in design, including architecture and clothing, but current technology is also present. It's not really meant to take place in the "real world" or a specific timeframe, so much as be a silly throwback to old comedies and especially old Laurel and Hardy films. So, the best answer to your question would be that it just sort of exists in its "own" time, so to speak - an amalgam of different time periods all put together for maximum comedy impact.
"Mouse Hunt" was not modeled on 1930s Laurel and Hardy films so much as it was a direct retread of 1940s "Herman and Catnip" and "Tom and Jerry" cartoons, which spawned many knock-offs over the decades, from "Coyote and Roadrunner" cartoons to live-action comedies such as "Home Alone" and others.
16th Feb 2004
Ringu (1998)
Question: There is a scene in Sadako's video (ie. the death tape) which features some people crawling backwards. I have watched this film millions of times and cannot work out what it means. Does anyone know what it means or if relates to anything in the film? Does it even have a meaning?
Answer: The other answer is not correct, although you could take it that way if you wanted. The novel upon which "Ring 0" is based was not even out at the time, nor was the prequel even planned at the time this movie came out. So that's not really the answer, although you could retroactively try to connect the two. As for the actual question: the crawling figures are typically viewed as being representations of the victims of the volcanic eruption that Shizuko (Sadako's mother) predicted. Especially as they appear right after words like "eruption" appear onscreen. Or they can be viewed somewhat more nebulously as representations of Sadako's pain, or the pain her victim's feel.
Answer: It may relate to a scene in Ringu 0, which goes a bit more into Sadako's origins; in that film, Sadako is a normal girl trying to hold back the evil spirit within her. A large group of people chase Sadako past the well, but the evil spirit breaks out and Sadako kills them all; the crawling people could be them as they were dying.
10th Sep 2018
Batman Returns (1992)
Question: How did Penguin assemble his gang if he had never left the sewers?
Answer: He's left the sewers before. In a scene where Bruce is reading through old articles, the film itself blatantly implies that at one point in his life, he was taken in by a traveling circus and advertised as the "aquatic bird boy", which is where he met most of his gang. He retreated back to the sewers after children went missing, and he was blamed. The implication being that he either kidnapped or killed children out of rage for having what he never had - a family.
3rd Sep 2018
Inception (2010)
Question: Seems like a petty, trivial question, but it has been bugging me. Throughout the film, events that are taking place on one level have a profound impact on the the level below. One example is the scene with Arthur fighting the with the 'bad guys' while floating without gravitational pull. This is a result of the van being in mid air in the 1st level. How come Nolan chose this approach? It's like saying that if we sleep during a flight, we will definitely dream that we are in the air. Or if we get slapped while dreaming, we will be tossed aside aggressively. We all know that is not the case. There isn't such a direct connection between what happens in reality and what happens in a dream. Seems to me that Nolan traded the integrity of the whole dream eco system for some stunning visuals. Or am I very wrong?
Answer: Dreams can be and are often influenced by what's happening around us. There's been plenty of research on the topic and some interesting findings. Yes, Nolan exaggerates it for the purpose of drama, but it's based on reality to some extent. You also have to remember, the film's rules establish that the deeper levels of dreams are quite different, what with time being greatly extended, the subconscious playing a bigger role, etc. So it'd stand to reason that smaller things in the level above would have a large and consistent impact on lower levels, since it'd be messing with your mind. Also, and most importantly... it's a sci-fi movie. It can alter the rules of reality a bit for the sake of the story being told.
Thanks a lot TedStixon. You've put my mind at ease :).
10th Sep 2018
Batman Returns (1992)
Question: Why did everyone completely ignore Penguin biting a man's nose off?
Answer: He didn't bite it off, but almost. The people in the room are all just power and money hungry, they decide to ignore it in hopes to keep their job.
Answer: The same reason real-world employees might not say anything if their boss is abusive or inappropriate - they want to stay quiet and keep their jobs. Best not rock the boat, so to speak. Also, both Penguin and Max Shreck are very influential people - not exactly the sort of people you'd want to mess with or contest. Hence, everyone sort-of just ignores what happened and continues on with their day.
15th Aug 2018
The Transporter 2 (2005)
Question: Why was Frank evading the police after managing to escape the bad guys? Couldn't Audrey tell them that he was on their side?
Answer: The police will just get in the way and slow things down too much. Frank can operate outside of the law and get more done and get it done quicker. Plus, they can't just take Audrey's word for it.
31st Jul 2018
Men in Black (1997)
Question: I loaded the film up on Netflix, and it seems that the dialogue in one scene was edited. In the standard cut of the film, Jeebs says "You insensitive prick!" to K, but in the version I saw on Netflix, Jeebs says "You insensitive jerk!" What's the deal with the Netflix version changing this one single line? The original "prick" line appears to be on both the VHS and Blu-Ray edition I own.
Answer: After a little research, I discovered that the line was changed in the UK release from "prick" to "jerk." So the most likely explanation I can find is that the Netflix version is taken from a UK master of the film. As mentioned in other comments, Netflix doesn't censor their films, so the other answer regarding the film being edited like movies shown on airplanes isn't accurate. (Not to mention, it'd make no sense for Netflix to edit this one profanity while leaving all the others intact if they were editing it for content).
I agree it's the UK version. I don't know if it's a licensing thing or cheaper, but I've notice Netflix will use the UK release version on a number of films. I'm not familiar with "prick" as a UK slang but I believe it's more graphic than US slang, similar to the word "fanny", and edited for the UK release.
Answer: In fact, it's done twice. When talking about Frank the pug, the standard edit has K saying "I just hope the little prick hasn't skipped town." The streaming version doesn't. I say streaming version because I just discovered that the Amazon version of this film edited out the word "prick," and I didn't realise the Netflix version had too. I'm in the US, so what's going on here?
Generally the changes people notice in films when watching Netflix or other services come from the fact that they're airing the UK release version (for whatever reason). I remember the first time people really noticed this was when Scooby-Doo 2 changed the product placement from Burger King to KFC (which I commented on).
Answer: As more films become available online and are accessible to a wider audience, the studios edit mature content that is unacceptable to under-aged viewers. It's the same as movies that are shown on airplanes where the adult content is edited or removed altogether.
Netflix doesn't censor their movies, though... So this explanation makes no sense.
It just seems odd, as Netflix basically never censors content in other films they host (since they're supposed to be hosting the officially released versions anyways), and the rest of the profanity/violence in this particular film is unedited.
31st Jul 2018
Cult of Chucky (2017)
Question: At the end of Bride of Chucky, the Tiffany doll has a stitched scar on her forehead from being hit with an axe by Chucky. In the end of Cult of Chucky, the Tiffany doll is revealed and does not have the scar she had previously. What happened to it?
Answer: It's been years since the injury. Maybe she transferred her soul to another doll? Maybe she repaired her head? Maybe she copied her soul into another pristine doll as she can now inhabit multiple hosts at once? Take your pick, as it's a relatively insignificant matter.
3rd Apr 2004
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Question: If Malcolm was dead, how did he know all about Cole, and that he needed help? Where did he get all the info?
Answer: It's never explained in the film, but the implication seems to be that he was just sort-of compelled to help Cole. Given the film portrays the dead as only "seeing what they want to see" and trying to resolve unfinished business from life, it's entirely possible that Malcolm falsely believes he was assigned to Cole's case, even though he wasn't. It's just his way of trying to move on.
I'd like to add that despite the ghosts not knowing they are dead, they do know they can interact with Cole and others who can see them, they are even drawn to them, for help. This happened with Malcolm too and him being child psychiatrist connected with his ability to communicate with Cole, not asking Cole for help but helping Cole help himself. The info he has is probably a collection of his previous encounters with him, perhaps even being there at past psychiatrists. Its also possible he was his next patient, before he got shot. The dossier could have already been at his house and he remembers it.
Answer: In his notes, it says referred September 1998, so I am guessing he had been referred to Willis, but they never met, but when he suddenly finds himself sitting outside his house, drawn by whatever forces do such, he would naturally assume he was there to meet with his new referral, or perhaps he imagined it, one part of his mind telling him he was there to meet his patient, and one part conjuring up a note pad that would have the notes of the referral.
Answer: The dead need to finish things on Earth before they can move on. In Malcolm's case, he needs to help Cole - making up for his failure to help Vincent Grey. In order to do this, he needs the relevant information, so it is supplied to him by whatever agency controls these things. As the dead are unaware of their condition, Malcolm receives the information as if it were another case file for him to work on.
7th Nov 2017
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)
Question: Where did the Mül converter, the creature that replicates any product, come from? A lot of people seem to know about it even though planet Mül is unknown and unvisited, and more importantly, completely destroyed. The only survivors of the planet were hidden inside a damaged spaceship along with the only pearl they managed to save, so where did the creature come from? Isn't it native to the planet as well?
Answer: As portrayed in the film, the Mül converter is a native creature from the planet Mül. Given that several decades have passed since the destruction of the planet and its former citizens have been traveling to the stars, it's obvious that over time, other people and races learned about the Mül converter's powers, hence it became sought after on the black market. It was likely among the few beings who were saved before they planet's destuction - the Pearls seemed to keep them as pets, so it's very likely that one or two were brought along when they escaped, even if we didn't see it happen.
3rd Nov 2017
Scream (1996)
Question: At the party Randy receives a phone call saying the Principal has been killed, and everyone leaves to go see his body. Who would have called Randy to say this? Most of his friends are at the party, and even if some of them aren't, no one is hanging around school at 7pm, and the cops definitely didn't call him, so who did?
Answer: This has already been asked. Copying the answer from the previous submission: Billy came to the party late, presumably because he was hanging the body. The school seems pretty deserted when the principal gets killed (he goes into the corridor and only the cleaner is there, presumably cleaning after school is out) so it's reasonable to assume no one would have missed him yet.
Answer: Well first, you said "most of his friends " so some of Randy's friends definitely aren't at the party. Also, news travels fast in a small town, especially things that are serious like murders/accidents/etc. In addition, given the subtle implication that the principal was attacked and strung up on display on purpose to make the kids leave the party to go check it out (thinning the heard so to speak), it's entirely possible one of the killers might have tipped someone off about the body so it'd be found, or that it was left wide out in the open where a student or groundskeeper or someone driving by might have seen it. Either way, it's a very plausible scene.
Answer: Roman Bridger, director. And brother. Well, half brother.
Answer: Maybe "the killer"?
14th Jul 2018
Bride of Chucky (1998)
Question: It was discovered that Chucky was able to transfer his soul into Andy's Good Guy in the first movie by not only saying a chant but also using a magic amulet. So why, in the other three movies, when he is starting the chant does he not need the amulet to transfer his soul out of the doll into someone else, but in this movie, he needs to use it if he wants to return to his own body?
Answer: There's two possible explanations. First, and the most likely, is that this is simply what's referred to as a "retcon." (Short for "Retroactive Continuity") A term to describe new information/rules/backstory/etc. that are introduced in order to alter the path of a story, or impose new ideas into a narrative. In this case, the series creator and writer Don Mancini needed a reason for the characters to go on a road-trip, hence he created this new idea for an amulet that Chucky need to obtain. And basically, Mancini himself has admitted that he will often change the rules for the series as needed from film to film based on the story he wants to tell, which makes this the more plausible explanation. The second possible explanation is that you could argue that the amulet will allow Chucky to transfer his soul regardless of how long he's been in the doll's body, surpassing the time limit imposed in previous films. But in all seriousness, the former is the more likely explanation. They just needed a new story-element to justify the road-trip aspect of the story.
Both answers work for me. Thank you.
29th May 2009
The Ring (2002)
Question: If you were on your seventh day and there was no TV in sight, would Samara still be able to kill you?
Answer: 2 of the 4 teens in the beginning died in a car crash, so it seems Samara can kill you without a TV present.
Answer: Most likely. We have no idea how far away she can be from the TV she spawns from, or if anybody who hasn't been cursed can even see her. Chances are, she would come out of the nearest TV, and stalk you over a great distance. As we see when she kills Naomi Watson's boyfriend, she can practically teleport, and who knows if her power is limited only to TVs.
Answer: Yes, she'd find a way. In some of the original "Ring" franchise media, Sadako (the inspiration for Samara in the remake) can come out of other surfaces, so it'd be logical to assume that Samara would be able to do the same thing. (Or have another method of getting people who have been cursed).
23rd Jan 2017
The Boy (2016)
Question: How could Brahms speak with a child's voice? He must be 28 years old. Don't you think that the voice sounded too much like a little boy for a man to mimic?
Answer: First, the other answer stating his voice box was damaged by the fire is pure conjecture, and also isn't supported by the fact we hear Brahms speaking with an adult voice at one point in the climax. But to answer the original question, it's really not that hard for an adult to mimic a child's voice. Heck, voice actors do it all the time. Presuming that he's been stuck in the walls since the fire when he was a boy, he probably is used to speaking and acting like an overgrown child much of the time as he never really "grew up" mentally (as evidenced by his clumsy body language and attitude), only slipping into his "adult voice" when he becomes overtly irate or loses control.
Chosen answer: His voice box was damaged in the fire making his voice sound like that.
23rd Nov 2008
Saw V (2008)
Question: Jigsaw tells Detective Hoffman (While he is in the chair with a shotgun to his throat) that "Unlike you, I have never killed anyone. I give people a chance" In Saw II, one of the traps was a revolver behind a door, barrel aiming straight through the eye slot. There is no sign of this from inside the room, where the victim is. Person turn a knob on the door and the gun fired and killed them. How is that giving someone a chance or not killing them? He didn't give them an option beyond getting killed. This person didn't have any chance, unlike every other trap.
Answer: What fired the gun was not the knob turning, but the key turning in the lock, and the occupants of the room were specifically told not to use that key on the door. Had they just waited long enough, the door would have opened without anyone getting hurt.
Answer: Best part of this is not the fact that you point out this trap but there are a ton of Jigsaw traps that break his I don't kill code. Like Amanda's trap in Saw. No matter what either the drugged guy on the floor must die or Amanda must die either way someone has to die. Second showing in this is the Saw 6 opening trap, same with Saw 7. In both traps someone has to lose and die for the other to live. Actually all the Saw 6 traps are like that for the most part. Most of Jigsaw's traps are just listening to the way he tells you the rules and you'll survive.
Answer: From the beginning, Jigsaw has always been hypocritical and inconsistent. Every film has displayed this. You gotta remember - he's a psychopath. Even though he puts people into tests where they will likely die and even gives some people no option other than to die, he doesn't consider himself a murderer because he doesn't directly kill them. Also, in the scene in question from "Saw II", he does indeed give a warning to the group not to open the door (read aloud by Xavier) - they ignore him, hence the man who tries to open the door dies.
13th Jun 2018
Mr. Deeds (2002)
Question: What does Babe mean when she says "our sense of ironic detachment" (stating that Deeds doesn't share it)?
Answer: Irony is basically the opposite of expectation, whether it be intentional or not. Ex. A children's party clown is diagnosed with clinical depression - ironic, because that's the opposite of what you'd expect. People who are purposely ironic are often that way because they either are overly pretentious or just don't care. Detachment is typically being purposely removed, overly objective or aloof from a situation or even life in general. Ex. A jaded individual who doesn't like to do things most people enjoy because he finds it tedious or pointless. In this context, it appears Babe is trying to imply that as glorified gossip-pushers, she and her boss are badly disconnected from the norm and are jaded, to the point they generally no longer actually care about people or stories - they're just in it for money and exposure. Whereas Deeds is a genuinely good guy who doesn't buy into this way of thinking/living.
6th Jan 2004
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Question: At the very end of the movie after Dorothy says "Oh, Auntie Em, there's no place like home," normally, it fades out to the credits, but once - and only once - when I was very young, I thought I remembered seeing the camera pan away from her face and down to the foot of the bed where you see the ruby slippers tucked underneath the bed, then a fade to the credits. It is obviously a black-and-white shot, but there were the glittering shoes. Has anyone else seen this version of the ending?
Answer: Another fine example of the Mandela Effect. None of the "making of" books reference this alternate ending. The original book ends with Dorothy losing the slippers on her journey back to Kansas.
I also remember this scene; however, I remember it in a television movie, and it was at the beginning, not the end, of an entirely different movie.
Chosen answer: Yes. I'm sure I've seen that version. It shows that Dorothy didn't just dream about Oz and makes for a more satisfying conclusion. This version was original but edited out because it didn't follow the book's storyline for "Return to Oz" and the other long series of Oz books. The sequel pertains that she loses the slippers in transit back to her home and falls to the gnome king who destroys Oz which in turn causes Dorothy to return. So seeing the slippers at the end of the bed, while more satisfying, wouldn't really stay true to the Oz series.
I absolutely remember that version with the shoes at her bedside, but nobody I know remembers it.
Thank you! I remember that too but everyone I know thinks I'm nuts.
I remember that version and after that I expected to see the same ending but no I never saw that ending again. I got the response that no-one I know saw that ending of the movie where the ruby slippers being on her feet in her bed. Thank you for that answer. This was a long time mystery.
I absolutely remember that scene.
I remember that too - and I've asked so many people and they said no, I must have dreamed it. Thank you.
I saw that version once when I was a little kid too! I remember it vividly. Now I know I'm not crazy.
Answer: https://criticsrant.com/mythbusters-dorothys-ruby-slippers/ This website gives some confirmation it's one of those myths that spread around and get mixed up in people's memories to being convinced they have seen it despite no evidence of it existing. In a film as big as the Wizard of Oz where die hard fans have collected original scripts, notes, and "lost" imagery over the years; we certainly would have something to back this up other than eye witness memory. Especially if it supposedly made it to the final print for viewing audiences as the original Wizard of Oz footage has been carefully preserved, as it's considered one of the most important films of all time. This footage wouldn't be completely lost if it made it to final showing print. Surely somebody would have posted it by now on YouTube. It is possible somebody made a skit or parody of this though contributing to the idea that it was actually in a print of the real movie.
Answer: This seems to be one of those mass examples of people remembering something that never happened. There are also other variations, like people claiming to remember the film switching to color as the shot pans down to her slipper-clad feet, or the slippers being in color against the sepia-toned B&W footage. But sadly, it seems no officially released version of the film has had such an ending. It's similar to how everyone thinks Darth Vader says "Luke, I am your father," or how everyone thinks Humphrey Bogart says "Play it again, Sam!", even though neither of those lines are real, and people are merely incorrectly remembering them. The film is so ingrained in pop-culture, that people think they know it forwards-and-back, and false memories are created.
I agree that people think they remember things that never happened, but usually for things like this, remembering a scene wrong misquoting a movie lines, it comes from parody versions and people are (correctly) remembering the parody. I've never seen "Silence of the Lambs", but I know the line "Hello, Clarice" from films like "Cable Guy" and not from a false memory of the film.
Answer: I remember this being part of a special that was hosted by Angela Lansbury in 1990 and they showed that this ending was considered for the movie. For many years I couldn't remember why I remembered that ending and Angela Lansbury until I looked it up. I wish that it had been left like that. Kids always want their dreams to come true.
Answer: I and a friend of mine remember seeing the ruby slippers under Dorthy's bed at the end of the movie. Glad to know we didn't imagine it.
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: Movies are incredibly expensive. Product placement helps pay for them - companies will give the studio money if the movies feature their products, which lessens the studio's financial burden. The stickers are likely just more product placement, but in the "reality" of the movie... Jon just probably thought they'd look cool or make the train look more realistic or something.
TedStixon