Question: What is the name of the soldier that's sketching while in the barracks (and which one is he during the raid?)? I never could catch the name, and it's not in the subtitles.
kayelbe
13th Jun 2005
Black Hawk Down (2001)
12th Jan 2023
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Continuity mistake: In the first training session, Maverick eliminates both Hangman and Rooster, meaning they should return and do their push-ups and we are shown this, meaning once you have done your PT, that is it for you. However, later in the sequence, both Hangman and Rooster are shown still in the air where Hangman is talking to Rooster about his relationship to Maverick, who has been observing them the whole time.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Rooster does his pushups after the first sortie, flying with Payback and Fanboy (who made up the rules). Next up are Fritz, Harvard, and Yale, followed by Hangman, Phoenix, and Bob. Omaha, Halo, and Coyote lose next. Then Rooster goes out again but this time with Hangman. Because of their beef, that sortie ends when Maverick tells them to knock it off. Hangman technically didn't get shot down, so Rooster does the last set of pushups by himself. Nowhere is it said the day ends with one set.
Speaking as someone who has worked on pre and post-production on over five hundred films, I must respectfully disagree with this. My point is that the editing has been screwed up, as all the people who were shot down by Maverick stayed down and did not go back up again. We do not see Rooster go up again, so I have to take issue with this.
27th Sep 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Corrected entry: Phoenix says Hangman is the only active-duty pilot in the Navy with a confirmed kill, but she is wrong because Maverick has 3 confirmed kills and is still an active-duty Navy pilot, even though he has been flying test aircraft. (00:25:10)
Correction: She says, "you are looking at the only naval aviator on active duty with a confirmed air-to-air kill." She isn't wrong. Maverick was not an active-duty navy aviator since three years before that moment and would not become one until near the end of the film, i.e, a week later. Second, films are allowed to show characters that make in-universe mistakes. She corrects herself near the end of the film at 1:58:20, saying Maverick is an active-duty navy pilot with five kills.
Maverick is still an active duty Naval aviator the entire time.
Active duty yes; his designator was a test pilot, not a naval aviator at the time.
People on active duty get promoted based on their service length. In this film, Maverick has not received a promotion for 30 years, and more importantly, has not scored a single aerial kill in 30 years.
He's had a few promotions in 30 years. In 1986, he was an O-3. In this film, he is an O-6. He hasn't been promoted at the same rate as his peers, for sure, but that's just who he is. He didn't want to be in a position where he couldn't fly anymore. On that note, he's not assigned to a Fighter Squadron at the beginning of the film, but to a test pilot billet - so technically, Phoenix was correct in her thinking if not her choice of words.
Cyclone graduated in 1988. 34 years later, he's an Admiral and air boss. Maverick graduated two years earlier and stayed a Captain for Amelia's entire life, despite having flown missions in Iraq, among other things. Where did all his service time go? The answer is a "dishonorable discharge." He got his service time annulled because of his escapades involving "The Admiral" (Penny's father), "the Other Admiral", and Admiral Cain. He got fired. In the real world, he'd get fired upon.
You are assuming way too much. While it's true that the Navy would likely encourage him to retire long before the events of the new movie, it's spelled out in the film that he hasn't advanced because he wants to keep flying. He's a maverick, plain and simple. If he has to piss off an Admiral to keep from getting promoted to a desk job, he'd do it.
Let me quote what you just said: "it's spelled out in the film that he hasn't advanced!" There you go. Do you know what else has been spelled out in the film? That at 00:25:10 film time, Hangman was the only active-duty pilot in the Navy with a confirmed kill.
No, it's spelled out that he is the only active naval aviator with a kill. Maverick is not a naval aviator anymore; he is a test pilot. Different designators.
18th Jun 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Continuity mistake: In the first scene when Maverick enters the airbase on his motorcycle it is mid-morning based on the sun and shadows. When he takes off in the test jet it is pre-dawn.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The movie sequencing/reveal is shoddy for this. Prior to him uncovering the motorcycle and heading out he slaps the calendar on the wall where it says, If I recall, "Mach 8." the day before on the calendar says something like "training" or "physical test" or something (I honestly forgot). That happens the first day ("afternoon") as shown with him on the treadmill; he sleeps on-base to get up "pre-dawn" and that's when the admiral arrives and he takes off.
This shot is likely referring to the fact that at Mach 10 he's travelling so fast towards the west that the sun (which only just set) appears to be rising again, as he outraces the darkness.
Travelling that far west would bring aircraft and pilot well over the pacific. No chance to find a lift back there.
I've watched this movie many more times since my comment. The runway assigned is "21", which has a heading of 210°, roughly southwest. This puts him facing the setting sun, but at his speed he's covering such a distance that he's actually seeing it "set" again. Even with the turn, the POV of the breakup appears still heading west. Somehow he ends up in rural (Northern?) California, walking all night to arrive at the diner for breakfast.
9th Aug 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Corrected entry: During the final mission, it's mentioned that a T-LAM strike from the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Leyte Gulf will precede the Top Gunners and destroy the airfield. However, the number of tomahawks shown in flight is far too many to have been fired from a single ship given how close together they are (practically in close formation).
Correction: Yes we can fire that many in a short amount of time.
Granted it's been over 20 years since I was on a Tico (a snipe at that), and we only fired a dozen in a single strike, but maybe our mission profiles didn't call for rapid succession. I would defer to someone who has more contemporary experience.
13th Sep 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Plot hole: How could the E-2 Hawkeye not spot the enemy helicopter? It must have been airborne for many minutes at least before attacking Maverick. But less than 90 seconds before we see the helicopter, Comanche only confirmed the two Bandits approaching. (01:40:29 - 01:42:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The helicopter is never shown on film more than 50 feet off the deck. It was previously established that the Hawkeye lost radar contact of Dagger Flight when they lowered their altitude on the approach-and they were over water at the time. The helicopter was shown exclusively within the heavily forested area which would almost certainly mask it from radar regardless of altitude.
Only the carrier lost radar contact, which is why they switched to "E-2 picture." The Hawkeye had radar contact with the Daggers all the time when they were cruising low through the narrow, forested, snowy canyon. The enemy helicopter would be as visible to Hawkeye radar as the Daggers.
I stand correction-corrected. Thanks.
23rd Aug 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Corrected entry: The team is required to fly at high speed due to the anticipation of 5th gen fighters intercepting them on the way out. Issue 1 - They blew up the nearest airbase, so where would these fighters come from? Issue 2 - If they expected them from another nearby base, they should have launched the tomahawks later in the mission (as it was, they would have given the enemy a major head start by blowing up the runway about a minute to early). Note: The only planes that arrive were totally unexpected.
Correction: They say in the film that the point of the runway strike is to stop new aircraft taking off, but that some will already be in the air on patrol - those are the ones which come after the US planes.
I wondered too why they attacked the airfield when they did. That attack is what tipped the bad guys off, right? Without that warning the team could have flown up the canyon with less speed, have an easier shot at the target, and climb out with less danger. Escaping without crashing into the steep mountain was perhaps the most difficult part of the mission. So why not hit the airfield after the target it hit?
That is fair, but they seemed fairly surprised when the 2 bandits appeared on radar, and the Air Boss even asked where they came from. If they anticipated patrols, he shouldn't have been so surprised. They still launched the tomahawks way too early - there was no reason not to time them to hit at the approximate time that Maverick was in position to fire. Time was stated as their biggest adversary, and the tomahawks landing early cost them decent amount of it.
My assumption was that after taking out the initial aircraft, they'd assumed that was all there were, presumably with no others on radar. The final two may well just have been further away than radar range. The missile timing is a bit debateable - given their job was to stop any new fighters taking off, and the F-18s being under the radar would keep them secret anyway, it didn't need to be down to the second. Perhaps they wanted to hit the runway early enough to give the planes time to cancel the attack if the runway wasn't properly disabled.
They WERE surprised when they appeared on their radar. That's the point of the 5th generation stealth technology! The "where'd they come from" response was spontaneous, since the radar picture was clear and then it wasn't.
3rd Mar 2022
Somewhere In Time (1980)
Question: Before Old Arthur leaves the room, why did he get the feeling that him and Richard met before?
Answer: Because they had met before. When Richard went back in time to 1912, Arthur was a five-year-old boy. Old Arthur remembers, or at least recognizes, Richard from that time.
Except that Richard hadn't travelled into the past yet.
Like all time-travel fiction, if he will, then he already did. The portrait he saw in the gallery of Jane Seymour is another example: He brought the smile to her face and IIRC, she changed her pose upon seeing him.
Exactly right. Time-travel films rarely make sense plot-wise. They employ a "suspension of disbelief" where the audience just accepts the premise so the story can be told, regardless of whether or not everything makes sense. As I recall, Jane Seymour's "old character" told Richard to "come back to her," meaning she wanted him to go back in time to when she was young.
Time Travel movies and shows do this sort of thing often. This movie actually keeps to the premise of time travel pretty well.
Answer: He already did, when the elder Elise approached him and said, "Come back to me." When he visited her home and listened to the music box and replied. "That's my favorite song." He found his name in the old hotel register in the storage room. At the end of the movie, when he returned to the future, Elise was holding his pocket watch, which she returned to him when she was old. All that concludes he did time travel, he just hadn't done it yet.
Thanks. Time travel movies sure are confusing.
4th Jan 2020
Die Hard (1988)
Stupidity: Hans keeps a major part of his plan secret from his own team: that the electromagnetic lock will be disabled if the FBI shuts down power to the building. The mercenaries hired as muscle don't need to know the minutiae of the plan, but it seems ludicrous that Theo wasn't told. Theo states on more than one occasion that he can't proceed past a certain point and that he hopes Hans has a plan for the final lock. Evidently, Hans was keeping this information secret simply to amuse himself, which makes little sense considering how much planning went into the heist.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Or because he simply doesn't trust anyone with that kind of knowledge. He neither trusts them or cares about them, it's all him.
So he trusts that Theo would be on board with all the murder and mayhem, open all the other locks, be in a tactical lookout position when the police try to breach, and drive the getaway vehicle. But he doesn't trust Theo enough to tell him the last lock will open when the power goes out?
It's not about trust; Hans needs Theo to do what he is there for and that is all you mention up to the final lock. He has a plan for the final lock and so there's no need to discuss it with the team, since it won't be any of them responsible.
The more people that know the plan the more chances of someone talking. Especially when they are hired mercenaries.
Theo was already on board with taking hostages and committing murder. Him knowing that the power needed to be shut off to open the last lock doesn't appear to be particularly important information you would need to keep from someone to keep them from talking.
If he's the only one that knows the final step to get the money, then at least up until that moment he is absolutely indispensable to the plan and ensures no-one would double-cross him. In any case I'm not sure being more cautious than necessary really qualifies as "stupidity."
25th Oct 2021
Groundhog Day (1993)
Question: Phil asks the landlady at the hotel if there is any hot water, and she laughs and says there wouldn't be any today. Why wouldn't there be any hot water? Wouldn't the hotel have boilers?
Answer: In a lot of old hotels those days used water heaters instead of boilers. A water heater has a limited amount of water heated, stored in a tank. So at the end of the week and every guest showering and using hot water during that week, the hot water will be gone before they refill the water heater at a specific day.
That's not how hot water heaters work. The water temperature is maintained by a thermostat. Once empty, it would take time to heat the refilled tank-but it's not heated on a specific day. The other answer is more correct.
Answer: Her laughter seems to imply that the rooms never have hot water when it's as cold as it was that day; maybe the pipes freeze, or her boiler just isn't very good. This isn't a five-star hotel, it's a small B&B run, it seems, solely by Mrs. Lancaster. Maybe she hasn't gotten around to fixing/arranging to fix whatever is wrong with the hot water, or it's just not something she sees as a big problem.
13th Jul 2017
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: When Ripley and the others are trying to figure out what they are dealing with Ripley suggests something is laying these eggs since there must be over 100. But she knows there already are hundreds if not thousands of these eggs so there is no reason to assume something is laying new ones. (01:34:40 - 01:35:15)
Correction: Ripley is running through the logic and realizing there is something they don't yet understand about the alien's life cycle: where the eggs come from. Even if they happen to be the same eggs from the derelict ship, the eggs had to have been created at some point, by something. But how? What is this process? She may have started out talking about how the specific colonists were taken over, but by the time she asks "who's laying these eggs," she's asking about the concept, in general. Because unless the creatures were specifically bio-engineered not to be able to, they almost certainly have the ability to create more eggs.
Correction: That's exactly what she means. She's saying something must've laid the eggs, and will likely continue to lay more.
But there is no reason for her to say there must be a queen lying these eggs, she knows there are eggs, there have been eggs there for decades.
In Alien, she doesn't know that though. She and the rest of the crew don't know what they've seen and what they're up against. Yes, she knows it's an alien but that's it.
She knows there are eggs from experiences in Alien where the eggs are discovered in the alien spaceship. Yet we don't see a queen alien. In Aliens, they aren't in the alien spaceship, they're in the atmosphere processing plant. Yes they're both on the same planet but do you think the eggs walked from one location to another? There must be something laying new eggs which Ripley hasn't yet seen.
My idea is that either the colonists or the xenomorphs themselves brought the eggs over to the colony. Perfectly logical if there is no queen. Sure it's also logical to think there is a queen, as movie viewers, but my point is there is no reason for Ripley to think something is lying these eggs whilst she knows there already were thousands of eggs.
Ripley is making the (correct) assumption that because the colonists are being taken deeper into the colony, and that the aliens have built a hive in the colony itself; that the eggs found there were laid there. If the hive had been built inside the derelict spacecraft, then Ripley likely wouldn't have made that assumption.
But why not think the aliens had taken the eggs from the derelict craft and taken them closer to the incubators, thus inside the colony? I just think it's far-fetched she immediately starts talking about a possible queen whilst there is hardly any reason to do so, where did the queen come from supposedly? All they know is some people from the colony brought aliens inside them into the colony and then all hell broke loose. Her assumption is nothing more than to help the plot along.
I don't think her assumption is far fetched at all. She assumes that the eggs must have been laid by something; which is logical. She then assumes the thing that laid the eggs is continuing to do so; which is also logical. Where the queen came from in never addressed in Ripley's conversation with Bishop. The two are merely speculating that there must an alien lying eggs and it must be something they haven't seen yet. It's quite a bit of a leap to think that the aliens somehow know that there are additional eggs miles away from the colony and they should go get them and bring them back. This borders on clairvoyance. It is much more logical, based on what the characters know and see, that the eggs in the colony were laid there.
But those eggs in the derelict ship have been lying there for an eternity, even if you would only count the amount of time Ripley has been asleep since she encountered them, no reason to think at all new eggs have been laid, no reason. Thousands of eggs were inside the derelict ship, the colonists were exposed to the aliens through those eggs, brought back to their colony inside themselves (they didn't bring eggs). It's ridiculous to think something then came, a queen, and nested inside the colony, unless a queen was brought along by the colonists, but Ripley and nobody in general have any idea how the aliens reproduce. It's more logical to think the aliens can reproduce on their own, not that a queen is needed. That's more of my point, the name "Queen" being used. That's what borders on clairvoyance. We know the Aliens have extrasensory perception (as shown in this movie) so them being able to sense the eggs that far away is a lot more believable to me.
I'm struggling with understanding your reasoning for why it is so unbelievable that Ripley and Bishop deduce that something is lying the eggs. Their explanation doesn't come anywhere close to clairvoyance. They make a logical guess that eggs are laid. They deduced, along with Hudson, that the creatures behaved in a similar fashion to ants or bees. That would mean logically a queen is lying the eggs. Once again, where the queen "came from" is never addressed in their conversation because it is irrelevant. The characters have much more than a general idea of how the creatures reproduce, they know everything pertinent except where exactly the eggs come from. I'm not understanding why you say it to be more logical that "the aliens can reproduce on their own, not that a queen is needed." If you are saying it to be more logical to think of the aliens as closer to chickens than ants (i.e., each creature lays it's own eggs), that doesn't make sense because they are basing their "ants" theory on the presence of a hive.
Well all right they may have guessed how the aliens behave and reproduce correctly, they did see all colonists together and probably incubated, a nest, fine. To me its all about the idea Ripley starts talking about a queen being down there from the fact there are over 100 eggs down there. Again, she knows there are thousands of eggs on the derelict ship already. What we know doesn't work for Ripley who knows nothing about those things. They aren't even sure how the aliens got to the colony and Ripley never mentions the derelict ship that had thousands of eggs again. For all she knows the colonists had already taken eggs from the ship back to the colony, why not think that's what going on? But she immediately jumps to the queen theory, which helps her later on.
Ripley mentions the derelict and the thousands of eggs both in the inquest and again on the Sulaco, both prior to the mission starting. Once they arrive on the planet and discover the hive they deduce that it might work like an ant colony or bee hive. Ripley questions "So what's lying these eggs?" to which Bishop responds "It must be something we haven't seen yet." Hudson is the first to suggest a possible queen. This conversation doesn't help Ripley later on in the movie. She literally just runs into the queen's chamber completely by accident. The conversation is just there to plant an idea in the audience's mind that there is an alien queen. You are arguing that based on what the characters know, they should have come to an incorrect conclusion (the aliens are taking eggs from the derelict back to the colony) rather than the correct one, if they came to any conclusion at all. You also say that "what we know" doesn't apply to what Ripley knows about the creatures, except that isn't true at all. At this point, Ripley knows everything about the aliens that the audience knows. Coming up with the idea that "these things built a hive like bees do. I wonder if that means they have a queen like bees and ants do?" is completely rational.
Let's agree to disagree then. What we know as the audience is that some colonists went to the derelict ship and brought back aliens inside them, Ripley and the marines don't know that as contact was lost and Newt isn't telling anything. Where do the eggs come from? The derelict ship should be the first idea, not that something is lying them, inside the colony even. Sure something once has laid them but that could have been thousands of years ago, where would a queen come from? All this, no logical reason to assume there is a queen. That's my opinion and why I posted the mistake.
We cannot agree to disagree because your theory is incorrect. It is safe to say that Ripley would logically deduce that neither the colonists nor the Aliens are capable of bringing 150 eggs hundreds of miles back to the derelict. It not possible. And as we see, the eggs are freshly laid, glistening wet. The most logical explanation is that a Queen was birthed from one of the colonists, as later happened to Ripley herself in "Alien 3."
If the colonists didn't bring eggs back how and why did they get facehuggers into the containment tanks and had time to study them? They just happen to have caught some? If they were that much into a crisis they wouldn't have wasted time examining them. No, they brought eggs back to study them, everything was going well until some got loose and escaped underneath the processing station, including a queen. Ripley never saw the eggs amount in the colony and the old ones looked just as "fresh."
If they brought back eggs, where were they? All we saw were the facehugger specimens. Surely Cameron would have shown us eggs in addition to them. He doesn't miss details like that. As such, the two live ones were "surgically removed before embryo implantation." Remember? The dead ones were from colonist rescuers answering Newt's family's mayday call. No way did they try to bring back the eggs without having gotten inundated first. Come on man.
It's not even the point. My point was always the use of the word Queen and Ripley's blind assumption the eggs were being laid fresh.
Again, that was the logical conclusion, not someone transferring dozens of eggs hundreds of miles from the derelict to the colony. Why would the colonists waste time doing that? Put yourself in Ripley's head for a moment. You don't really believe that in all that was going down that she'd logically conclude that someone, whether it be human or alien, would travel back and forth hundreds of miles to the derelict and bring eggs, do you? Neither did Cameron.
Note that when this scene starts the characters' discussion has been going on in circles for quite some time (much like this thread!). Ripley recaps what they've deduced so far ("let's go over it again") in the present tense, describing what appears to be an ongoing reproductive cycle (which if correct would render the derelict's eggs kind of moot) and when it hits a blank she prompts for suggestions. These aren't "blind assumptions"-they're testing theories and drawing tentative conclusions.
A Queen was obviously brought along by the colonists, as Ripley was impregnated herself by one in "Alien 3."
I never denied there was a queen brought back. But certainly not in that one facehugger that got stuck to Newt's dad's face. They brought back more. They had to, they must have contained the first one.
Obviously they did bring back more. Rescuers to Newt's family were inundated with facehuggers. Two were removed surgically before embryo implantation. The other three, which may or may not have included Newt's father, successfully implanted their embryos. One of which was obviously a Queen.
I find the theory that the aliens travelled hundreds of miles out to the derelict to fetch over 150 eggs to be far-fetched. Obviously Ripley logically deduced, based on the fact that there was a hive in the processing station, that there was something laying eggs.
The colonists were told by the company to find the derelict ship and bring back eggs to study, they were told, and they had plenty of time to get a lot of eggs before things went wrong for them. Newt's dad was just an incident, they continued their research and brought more and more eggs over. Therefore there is no reason for Ripley to think those eggs are freshly made.
Nope. Simpson, in the Special Edition, was told by Burke to investigate a grid reference. No explanation. Newt's family investigates and her father is facehugged. A rescue team comes to them and several members get facehugged as well. No eggs are transferred. The Aliens, including the Queen, are borne of these colonists and the Queen lays the eggs. Period. There is every reason for Ripley to think those eggs are freshly made. I don't know where you get these crazy ideas but you are dead wrong.
So you are telling me the people rescuing Newt's family were stupid enough to enter the ship as well and get facehugged just like Newt's dad did? And then more rescuers came to rescue these new schmucks? That's even more stupid.
Stupid people do stupid things. Ever read a story of how someone goes in a manhole and is overcome by carbon monoxide or something similar? They rarely find just the one body, but usually the one or two people who go in to "rescue" the first victim.
I've got no problem with stupid people doing stupid things. I just don't know what's the problem with my theory, if it's plausible. Again, it's not even the point of my problem with the scene in question.
Newt's parents did a stupid thing too, as did Kane. Otherwise we wouldn't have a movie. It's that your theory is implausible, period. The derelict served its purpose in the story and was no longer a concern to Ripley. She logically concluded that the hive eggs were being laid by someone or something. Surely no-one else was going back into the derelict to bring back eggs after what happened. Lesson learned. Occam's razor: all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.
24th Mar 2021
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Question: Miller, and his men meet a guy named Mendelson who has bad hearing because a German grenade went off right by his head. Realistically, wouldn't Mendelson be dead?
Answer: When he says "right by my head," I'm sure he doesn't mean it literally...if it had, of course he'd be dead. There could have been something blocking him from the shrapnel, but the sound wave could still severely damage his hearing.
Answer: He may have put too much into his line. It's possible the shockwave damaged his hearing. If the grenade went off right by him he would have much more severe injuries than loss of hearing. His injury on his face is probably from shrapnel caused by the blast.
11th Jan 2021
The Sandlot (1993)
Question: Can a lifeguard legally throw a kid out of the pool like Wendy did to Squints after he kissed her?
Answer: Absolutely. In addition to having to administer life-saving measures, the lifeguard on duty at a public pool is also responsible for maintaining order. A kid purposefully diving into the deep end of the pool and pretending to drown just so he could kiss the lifeguard puts himself and others at risk. Anyone who doesn't abide by the pool rules can be kicked out by the lifeguard with no warning needed at all.
Answer: I would add to the other answer that inappropriately touching or kissing another person without their consent is an illegal act, giving the lifeguard the legal right to expel anyone.
I appreciate the answer, but the movie takes place in the 1960s. As much as I agree with you, that sadly wasn't the way things were then.
Even though it was the 1960s, it would still be illegal to touch, grope, or kiss someone without their permission. It would be considered a technical physical assault. Unfortunately, in that era, it was taken less seriously than it is now and the consequences were minor (i.e. a stern warning) to non-existent. The lifeguard was in the position of power at the pool, however, and she had the authority to eject anyone for that type of behavior.
Not in the 1960s. It was just a kiss from a little kid. It was embarrassing, not illegal.
27th Aug 2001
Forrest Gump (1994)
Corrected entry: Throughout the whole movie they call Gump Private Gump when it is shown on his military uniform (when speaking at the hippie rally by the Washington monument) a listing of a E-5 - a sergeant. Also he went to college before the army, which means he would have been an officer, not a noncommissioned officer.
Correction: The last time some one called him Private Gump was the when he got the letter in Vietnam for the Medal of Honor. The next time someone said his rank and name was when he got his discharge papers, and he said SGT. Gump. So I see no mistake. And if you join the military after college doesn't mean your going to be automatically an officer unless you were in ROTC while in college, or you went to a Military Academy. You can be recommended for OCS (officers candidate school) if you have a college degree. Like his drill Sarge in boot camp recommended "if it was not such a waste of a fine enlisted man". So even with a college degree, if you enlist you start from the bottom.
Not true entirely. If you have a degree you start out enlisted as an E-4 SPC.
That may be true now, but probably not in the mid 60s. I knew several people in the US Navy (1990s) that came in with college degrees and weren't advanced past E3. I'd imagine it to be the same in the other branches.
You only start from the bottom if you want to. Or you don't qualify on the AFOQT. But, given his low intelligence score, he probably wouldn't have passed. But he would have still been given higher than an E-1.
8th Feb 2018
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Question: In the radar site scene, after Miller lets Steamboat Willie free, Reiben wants to leave the mission, and Horvath is holding his gun on him, Jackson also pulls his gun on Horvath, his superior. Nobody seems to care about it. Doesn't it count as a serious violation of military law or something?
Answer: It certainly does, not only on Reiben's part but also Horvath's. However, Capt. Miller was in no place to arrest or write up anybody as they were behind enemy lines and thus, no Allied Military Police to place anybody in custody, he even offered Reiben the option to put in for transfer. Miller understood the men's frustration with the mission and the loss of Wade and Caparzo, so instead of citing orders like he did after Caparzo was killed, decided to defuse the situation by inquiring about the men's pool on what he did as a civilian, then telling them. It worked, as Horvath and Reiben lowered their weapons and calmed the other men.
What about the fact that the soldiers in the movie are shown cursing a lot. Wouldn't that also be in violation of military law?
Maybe in the ultra-PC world of today, but certainly not WW2. I separated from service nearly 20 years ago, but can definitely say it was almost against regs NOT to swear.
What is the ultra PC world?
PC means Political Correct.
Read UCMJ article 134.
No. Swearing is fine in the US Military. It's very common. When I was in there I heard at least 1 F Bomb almost every 2 minutes.
15th Jul 2004
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: After the massive battle on Endor the Rebels try to make it look like the stormtroopers have won so the ones inside the shield generator will come out. What I don't understand is who's the Imperial guy that appears on the monitor telling them it's over and they need reinforcements? Aren't all the Imperials outside meant to be dead at this point?
Answer: Look close, it's Han Solo with his hand covering his mouth with the radio so as to not give away his identity. You can even recognize his voice. Apparently, he got inside the walker that Chewie highjacked, took an imperial officers uniform from somewhere, then radioed to the base to get them to come out so he could ambush them.
And a few seconds later, he had the time to go out of the AT-ST, remove his uniform and be on the ground for the ambush?
It's only a few seconds of screen time. Within the film itself, several troops gathered to meet them at the door, which could have taken a couple minutes. That's plenty of time for Han to have removed the helmet and gloves (only his head and hand are visible, so he likely didn't put the full uniform on) and the climbed back down to the ground.
You only see his head. It doesn't take long to remove a helmet.
It wasn't an entire uniform, just the jacket helmet and glove. And more than a few seconds had passed as the troops inside needed to be assembled and then exit the bunker.
If you look closely, you can see it's about a half-second of footage on a loop. Where they got it is another question.
29th May 2009
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: When Luke asked Leia if she remembers her real mother she said she does but she died when she was very young. Her mother died during child birth. How can Leia remember what her mother looked like?
Answer: Leia most likely knew she was adopted as she had no reaction to Luke asking about her "real mother." I believe the correct answer here is George Lucas hadn't planned on Leia's mother dying during childbirth when this scene was written and at that time Leia genuinely had faint memories of her real mother. This was later shown to be impossible when the prequels were made.
Answer: She is referring to Padme. I believe she actually replies 'not really' when asked what her mother looked like. Also, Leia was a senator at some point, like Padme. It is likely she would have seen a painting or senator entry.
She most likely didn't know Padme the senator was her mother, because that would mean Anakin/Darth Vader would therefore have the same knowledge. She most definitely knew she was adopted. The "not really, just feelings" (paraphrased) line was "ret-conned" to fit when the newborn twins were shown in Episode III. Luke's eyes were shut, while Leia's eyes were open-she "saw" her mother. Perhaps the Force gave her a more mature feeling/insight into her mother from the brief time between pregnancy and when she was spirited away to Alderaan and her adoptive family.
Chosen answer: The mother Leia refers to would be Queen Breha Organa of Alderaan. At this point, Leia has no idea that she was adopted.
Negative. Luke specifically says "your real mother." Nowhere is it said Leia didn't know she was adopted. It's also highly unlikely she didn't know, since her adoptive father was a high-profile governmental figure and no way would the press keep a tight lip on the Bail and his wife suddenly having a baby without any signs of pregnancy.
Bail Organa says "We've always wanted a daughter." It wouldn't make sense to tell the daughter they've adopted in order to hide her from Vader "Oh yeah, you're adopted but don't tell anybody because the Emperor would send Vader to hunt you down." Better to just let her think you're her real parents.
Just because Leia knows she's adopted doesn't mean she has any idea who exactly her birth mother was, aside from her apparent memories. The Organas may well have concocted a whole cover story about her birth parents for another layer of protection over her identity. In fact, the way both Luke and Leia casually use/accept the "real mother" term suggests that not only does Leia know she's adopted, it's actually fairly common knowledge.
Answer: The short answer is that we don't know and it's left a mystery for the viewer. But on the flip side the lack of concrete information does leave room for numerous possibilities: One is that Leia might simply be mistaken: she had dreams of an idealized mother figure that she mistook for memories. Another is that the Organas could've lied to Leia about who her birth mother was for her own protection, and she is recalling this decoy mother (I quite like the theory that they told Leia her birth mother was one of Padme's loyal bodyguards chosen for their resemblance to her). And of course there's always the possibility there's something supernatural going on: Leia is strong with the Force and doesn't know it, and Padme's fate was so inexplicable you could theorize she didn't even really "die" so much as her spirit simply left her body.
10th Aug 2016
Star Wars (1977)
Stupidity: The Death Star comes equipped with a powerful tractor beam capable of capturing a ship the size and agility of the Millennium Falcon. Why don't they use it against the rebel fighters attacking them at the end of the film? Okay, Obi-Wan Kenobi turned it off earlier but I find it hard to believe that someone who has never before visited the largest, most complex space station in the Universe and who was previously unaware of its very existence can disable a fundamental security system but the people who designed, built and run the whole thing can't work out how to switch it back on. They should have no problems with this, considering the fact that Obi-Wan didn't damage it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Obi Wan disrupted the battle at a critical time causing much confusion. We could chalk this oversight up to "Fog of War" - that in the heat of battle it's normal for commanders to overlook obvious things and seem to act stupidly. It would also be reasonable to assume that the fighters were too close for the tractor beam emitter to target them.
This scenario would require every single person on the Death Star who was involved in the maintenance of vital defence systems not noticing that one of them had been switched off! Not ONE person noticed? Obi Wan did not disable the tractor beam during "the heat of battle." There was a considerable time lapse between his switching off the tractor beam and the climactic final battle, during which time it would have been switched back on. When the Millenium Falcon leavs the Death Star Han Solo remarks that he hopes that "old man" succeeded in disabling the tractor beam, implying that those on the Death Star would be trying to use it. Even then, they didn't notice it had been switched off? Not sabotaged, not disabled, switched off.
Good point. This was definitely stupidity on the part of the Death Star crew, but not stupid as a plot point. It does happen in combat regularly. In 1987 the USS Stark was hit by 2 Iraqi Exocet missiles after challenging a single fighter. The ships' Close-in Weapons System should have easily shot the missiles down, but the investigation showed that no-one had noticed that the system had not been turned on.
They didn't use the tractor beam when the gang was escaping in the Falcon because they WANTED them to get away. The Empire placed a tracking beacon onboard so as to be able to find the hidden Rebel Base. As to how the Falcon was snagged originally: yes, they had just exited hyperspace, but they were not relatively fast; they were preoccupied with the TIE fighter (incapable of light speed) and the small moon right up to the point they were trapped in the tractor beam (and realizing "that's no moon!"
Suggested correction: The Falcon was travelling towards the Death Star when it was caught in the tractor beam. The tractor beam was properly turned back on by the time it travelled to Yavin. The rebel fighters are too small and quick to be held in a tractor beam and there are so many of them so it would be near impossible to trap enough to make a difference.
As I have already pointed out, assigning technical limitations to a wholly fictional piece of technology is absurd. As to "flying towards the Death Star" - the X and Y wing fighters are shown doing just that. As for being too quick, the Millenium Falcon is decelerating from superluminal speeds when it is captured in the tractor beam. That's pretty bloody fast in anyone's books.
It's flat out stated by General Dodonna in the battle briefing that the Death Star's defenses are based around repelling attacks by capital ships, not fighters. The targeting may not be exact enough.
Actually, claiming a fictional piece of equipment can't behave the way you think it should is somewhat silly. The previous explanation that the tractor beam's limitations were the reason for not using it during the battle makes perfect sense.
22nd Mar 2016
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Question: In the first sequence, there is a trap with Indy's competition's body stuck on it. Although it is sprung by somebody breaking the beam of light (which I find hard to believe, given that it and other traps were done without any kind of more modern technology we're used to, but suspend disbelief for the sake of the movie), how was it reset without human intervention after Forrestal was killed, and prepared for Sapito?
Chosen answer: Likely, it wasn't. The Hovitos are still guarding the temple. Presumably, they maintain and reset the traps.
You'd think in that case that they would've removed the body.
I don't know, I'd be more afraid to rob the place with a dead body stuck there than without.
Why? It's a good warning to other would-be thieves.
What better way to scare away future intruders.
Answer: More than likely, they left Forrestal's body as a warning.
Answer: The character played by Alfred Molina is actually named "Satipo," after a town. "Sapito" would mean "small frog." It's a common typo, but the more you know.
27th Aug 2001
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: This isn't a mistake, but a funny little thing: When you look closely to Drake's an Vasquez' Auto-cannons, you can clearly see, that these are modified German machine guns, produced by Heckler & Koch. In some shots, when firing, you can also see the ammo-belts hanging out of the guns (e.g. when Drake is firing his last rounds, just before he drops the gun). These machineguns are also carried by some Stormtroopers in "Star Wars" - almost unmodified.
Correction: The auto-cannons are actually German World War II era MG-42s, according to the special edition DVD.
Correction: The Stormtrooper E-11 Blaster was in reality the Sterling smg, manufactured in the UK.
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: Master Sgt. Tim 'Griz' Martin, played by Canadian actor Kim Coates. He's also the Delta taping his blood type to his boot. During the raid, he's thrown from a Humvee by a RPG. He loses both his legs and bleeds to Death. His name in the movie is Chris Wex.
Why is his name Wex, tho? He plays Griz Martin.
Likely (though I have no proof) that his family chose not to participate by allowing his name/likeness?
kayelbe