TedStixon

Answer: Connors believes that humans are too weak and flawed, and that if he transforms them all, he'll create a better, smarter and more powerful species. Presumably, given his motivations are to "improve" humanity, he also believes that society itself will also evolve into something "better" (even possibly utopian) once everyone has transformed. As for all the minutiae like what people will eat, hobbies, etc.? I don't think Connors has really thought about that. His obsession is very surface level, and basically starts and ends at "If I turn people into powerful hybrid beings, everything will be better!" Realistically? There'd probably just be a lot of panic and chaos, a lot of people might hurt or kill themselves when they realise they've changed into another species, and society would probably collapse for a while before slowly rebuilding itself over the course of years.

TedStixon

Answer: It's been a few years since I've seen this film, but if I recall correctly, the entire movie is revealed to have been a setup to make Dave learn about how he has to stand up for himself, since he's too nervous ands bottles up his emotions. She doesn't necessarily think he has "anger issues." She's just in on the whole scheme to teach David his lesson since she loves him and wants to help him.

TedStixon

Answer: I think he's just subtly showing Takagi that he's in control of the situation - there's no need to hide behind a silencer, which they were using earlier. They've taken over and can do whatever they want, including loudly executing people. It's a very subtle power-play.

TedStixon

Answer: They used guns with silencers to access the building and take control swiftly and quietly. Now that they no longer need to do that he takes off the silencer. A silencer affects the gun's accuracy. It is also highly likely he wanted the people in the other room to hear the shot.

lionhead

Answer: Hans may be posturing to look less menacing. By removing the silencer and placing the gun on the table, he appears to be "disarming" himself, making Takagi feel less threatened and creating a false sense of security to relax him a little so he'd be more cooperative.

raywest ★

Answer: To my knowledge, there isn't a scene like that in this film. It almost sounds like a shot from the movie "Saw 3D," where the Billy doll (whose face looks ever-so-slightly looks like the Ghostface mask) crashes through a window in an industrial-like setting in a cage attached to a wire. But at the same time, this isn't exactly an uncommon thing to see in movies. People swinging through windows from ropes and/or crashing through windows is very common, so it's probably just a false memory or your brain combining details from different movies.

TedStixon

Answer: Gremlins have hatched and are about to start attacking the town and he's trying to stop them. Reporting a corpse is relatively low-priority in comparison to that.

TedStixon

Answer: There's no missing scene. He just managed to survive the gunshot. Simple as that. It's a comedy movie that's having some fun with action-film cliches. Character surviving gunshots and explosions that should have killed them fits right in with that theme. (Not to mention, even beyond the movie, it's not uncommon at all for people to survive gunshots like that in real life).

TedStixon

Answer: It's been a while since I've seen the film, so take this with a grain of salt. This is hard to explain, but the way I always took it was that when Seth failed to kill his future self, it began to continually alter time/the timeline. Thus, time has to sort-of "catch up" to the older Seth. Which would explain why his wounds appear in "real time" based on what's happening in the present... time is "catching up" to him as the timeline is further altered. If I recall correctly, something similar begins to happen with OId Joe where he begins to remember Young Joe's actions as he performs them.

TedStixon

Answer: Honestly... they just decided to slightly rework the backstory of the doll in the "Annabelle" spin-off movies, leading to a minor discrepancy with the name. There are actually a few other minor discrepancies between the beginning of "The Conjuring" and the "Annabelle" movies. It's what you'd call a "ret-con" - a storytelling device where established continuity is altered in a subsequent work. It's as simple as that.

TedStixon

Answer: I looked all over Google and cannot find any references to Wahlberg bullying Reynor. Wahlberg mentioned that he would tease Reynor on set over silly things like his Irish accent, but all indications were that it was in more of a friendly way, kinda like how friends like to "bust each other's balls." Wahlberg also jokingly referred to Reynor as "an a**hole" in one interview, but almost immediately indicated he was just joking around and praised Reynor as an actor. Unless someone hears otherwise, it seems it wasn't a case of bullying so much as just friendly ribbing between a veteran actor and his younger co-star.

TedStixon

Answer: To try to throw them off the scent and add suspicion to make us think maybe possibly they're the killer(s).

Answer: It's never explained in the film, so any answer would be pure speculation. As you said, it was obviously done to draw suspicion onto her by the filmmakers, but there's any number of reasons she might not be able to, so really it's a case of picking your poison. (Perhaps she had a previous appointment she couldn't miss, perhaps she has a family matter to attend to, etc).

TedStixon

Answer: They're still convinced that they can make money off the house and ghosts that inhabit it. The promise of wealth can make people do strange things, including ignoring signs of clear danger. So they're remaining in the house in hopes that it can eventually make them a lot of dough.

TedStixon

Answer: The problem is that you're trying to force real-world logic into a series with heavy sci-fi/fantasy elements and broad storytelling. Would a real-world psychologist be able to tell when someone is faking? Possibly. But that doesn't make for fun storytelling, especially for a fantasy-heavy series aimed predominately at children. This is one of those cases where the audience is merely expected to suspend their disbelief for the sake of entertainment. And I can tell you that as a kid who watched this show when it first aired in the 90's, I personally never even thought about it.

TedStixon

Answer: Honestly, what made me start to notice revealing mistakes/visible crew was just learning about those types of mistakes on this very website and figuring out what to look for. Watching behind-the-scenes materials and learning how movies are made also helps. If I'm specifically going through a movie or show looking for mistakes, which I do sometimes for fun, I usually load up a Blu-Ray copy or the streaming service I'm using, and just scan through every shot, frequently rewinding and looking at all the little details. It can be subtle, so you may have to watch the same few shots 3, 4, 5+ times before you notice things. And even then, I'm sure I miss a lot of them.

TedStixon

Answer: First, it's imperative you watch a film or show with the ability to rewind (DVD, On Demand, Streaming, etc). Second, you should be familiar with the different types of filming techniques and procedures so you can visualize how the scene is being shot and where equipment and crew might be that could accidentally get in the shot. A lot of wide shots are going to expose revealing mistake, often time just briefly. While a continuous shot (where the camera doesn't cut) isn't going to have continuity issues. When the camera angle changes, that's when you can pick up mistakes. Finally, you can't be a passive viewer, if you're texting or looking at your phone, you're going to miss mistakes. And if you're really out to find mistakes, you'll probably miss the show (so it's best to look for mistake on your 2nd or 3rd viewing).

Bishop73

Answer: Expanding upon the other answer, the scene in the diner between Vincent, Jules, Ringo, and Yolanda is the clear emotional and thematic climax of the film. Therefore, shuffling the linear progression of the film to put it at the end makes sense from a storytelling point of view. Ending it with Butch and Fabienne escaping (chronologically, the last event in the narrative) would not have worked as a final scene.

Answer: Tarantino felt that telling the stories in a nonlinear structure would make the narrative more engaging since it would keep the viewer on their toes. Basically because you have to really pay attention to what's happening and put it together in your head like a puzzle. I'd also personally elaborate that it changes the way you view certain scenes because it leaps back and forth in time. Ex. We eventually learn that Vincent is destined to die, so the way his scenes later in the film play out hits you in a different way then they would have if the film followed a traditional linear structure.

TedStixon

Answer: The workload of making a TV show is usually intense, and they often film multiple episodes simultaneously or back-to-back in order to save time. It's basically like filming multiple feature-length films. Having a single director or the same producers working on every single episode would be borderline impossible and would take way too long, especially if the season is more than 10 episodes. They have a schedule to keep.

TedStixon

Answer: Doing some research, it appears you are referring to an episode of the science fiction black-comedy series "Dimension 404." It's an anthology series where every episode told an original story. The sixth and final episode, "Impulse", seems to match your description almost 100%. The show was produced for Hulu (where it is still available to stream, at least in the US) and seems to only have one season.

TedStixon

Answer: In Season 9, Episode 20 of "Mythbusters," Adam and Jamie tested whether a person could survive a "toilet bomb" (recreating a Lethal Weapon 2 scene) by jumping into a cast iron bathtub and being covered with a bomb blanket. They used 1 kg of C-4 explosives that created a blast with a peak lethal pressure of 180 psi outside the tub. The pressure inside the tub was recorded as a survivable 8 psi, though with probable hearing damage. From what I read, a grenade has a much lesser psi force than what the C-4 explosion produced. Depending on the circumstances, it seems plausible that a person could survive the force and shrapnel while inside the tub.

raywest ★

Answer: It's plausible but highly unlikely. Assuming it's an old metal bathtub (which seems to be the case), it's possible it might have deflected enough of the percussive shock and shrapnel to save him, but unlikely that it'd stop everything. It's one of those things where it probably wouldn't work 90% of the time... but there's that 1 out of 10 chance it could possibly work if he got really lucky and no big pieces of shrapnel came his way. (Plus, stranger things have happened in real life).

TedStixon

Answer: It's usually done that way for framing/composition reasons, since it looks more aesthetically pleasing to the eye to see two people beside each other than on opposite ends of a couch. Things that may seem more natural, like sitting on opposite ends of a couch, just don't often look good on camera. Plus, it subtly indicates that they are close in some way, making it a good storytelling shorthand. (It's kinda similar to how in TV shows, if a scene is set during the morning, there's usually a giant, ornate breakfast out on the table that nobody actually touches, save for maybe grabbing something before they run out the door. Totally unrealistic, but it looks good on camera and is a visual shorthand to indicate it's the morning).

TedStixon

Answer: I think you answered your own question - Vic was in police custody. A regular coroner is likely not going to be able to kill someone who is being held for murder. Additionally, in a more meta behind-the-scenes sense, I would assume they also didn't show Vic getting killed because it could potentially be too much of a hint/hat-tip towards the killer's identity. We already saw the Roy the coroner disturbed by Joey's body, so having Joey's killer get murdered would probably give away the twist that Roy was the killer.

TedStixon

Answer: The Bank Job (2008) based on a true story. A femme fatale, Saffron Burrows, convinces Jason Statham and his crew to rob bank full of safe deposits, not knowing it's a cover to retrieve some photos of a royal family member in a "Fifty Shades" situation. It takes place during the 1970's. Unfortunately, the other boxes belong to the mob. They capture and torture the adult film actor for information and as a hostage.