New this monthQuestion: Holmes says he realised that Inspector McDonald was an impostor because he supposedly knows the 'real' Inspector McDonald of the Edinburgh police. As shown in the other movies and Conan Doyle's original stories, there are several Inspectors working for Scotland Yard in London (another British city), which begs the question: does this resolution Holmes mentioned about two British Inspectors having the same surname make sense and, if so, why?
Big Game
29th Jan 2025
Terror by Night (1946)
Question: At the beginning of the film, the Russians steal the body of the alien from the warehouse. Later in the film, after Indiana Jones gets the skull from the body of the conquistador, he gets captured by the Russians. Spalko pulls the skull out of the alien body and sets it on the table to do the whole "look into the eyes" scene. After that scene, and they escape the camp, the group is carrying around the skull from the conquistador in order to return it to the temple. So, what happened to the skull they pulled from the alien's body? Did they steal the body to get the skull for the sole purpose of having someone stare into it to experience the mental stimulation? Did they just ditch it afterwards?
Answer: There is no definite answer in the movie, but it probably ended up in a remote research facility in Siberia. Or perhaps Hruschevs' private collection. They stole the skull from the warehouse because they thought it was important in finding the alien vessel.
Answer: Spalko never pulled any skull from the alien's body. The skull Spalko "tortures" Indy with is Orellana's.
20th Jun 2009
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: Why did Vader stop Luke when he tried to strike at the Emperor with his lightsaber? I know he said earlier that he has to obey his master, but he keeps encouraging Luke to give in to the dark side. If he hadn't stopped Luke, Luke could have given in to his anger and killed the Emperor, and also rid Vader of the Emperor at the same time.
Answer: Because the Emperor probably wouldn't leave himself so open to attack without a trick up his sleeve (a personal shield, perhaps), and if Luke failed in this direct assault, as Vader is expecting him to do, he would have had to explain why he didn't do anything to defend the Emperor and would have been executed himself.
Answer: It was still too early. While Luke was upset that the Rebels appeared to be losing, he was still relatively calm, and his attempt to strike the Emperor right then was still a rational choice made out of pragmatism, to bring him to justice. They need him to act on pure hatred so he can behold "the power" of the dark side, which they expect to be completely irresistible.
Answer: I've always thought that Vader has already turned and everything he does from this point on is to redeem himself: he stops Luke from killing the Emperor to prevent him from falling to the Dark Side and to fulfill the prophecy, since it says it must be "The Chosen One" (Anakin/Vader) who does it. He stops Luke from falling to the Dark Side a second time by provoking him and showing him what could happen if he turns, and finally he saves him in the scene where he grabs the Emperor.
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.
New this monthAnswer: If you're comparing the film to Arthur Conan Doyle's original Sherlock Holmes stories, then any discrepancy does not really apply. The Basil Rathbone films were loose adaptions of Doyle's work, often incorporating plot elements from multiple stories or were original screenplays with new characters. There was little regard to details or plot consistencies. "Terror by Night" was an entirely original story. The original Sherlock Holmes stories were set in the late Victorian era while the 12 Universal Studio films mostly took place during World War II, with Holmes often fighting Nazis and enemy spies. The first two Sherlock Holmes films by 20th Cent. Fox studio were generally faithful to the original stories.
raywest ★
New this monthActually, my question is related to the movies themselves and it's not a comparison. There are still several inspectors working for Scotland Yard in the Basil Rathbone saga too (I've made an entry edition to include this).
Big Game
New this monthThanks for clarifying, though you stated, "as shown in the other movies 'and' Doyle's original stories." Much of my previous answer still applies. The Basil Rathbone movies were not a definitive interpretation of Sherlock Holmes. The first two by 20th Century Fox were mostly faithful to the original stories. The 12 later Universal Studios films were lower-budget, cranked out in rapid succession for profit, and shifted the time period to the mid-20th century for cheaper production costs. The studio's mandate was the films were, "to simply be entertaining B pictures." There was little regard for historical accuracy or plot continuity from film to film. Scripts were simultaneously developed by different writing teams. The 12 films had multiple directors and screenwriters who were focused on their individual projects.
raywest ★
New this monthActually, almost all the movies were directed by Roy William Neill (11 of 14).
Big Game
New this monthThat's true, but many different screenwriters were simultaneously working on the various movies. It's also typical in Hollywood for uncredited "script doctors" to revise scripts, further adding to small inconsistencies. Universal Studios had a seven-year contract with the Doyle estate to make the Sherlock Holmes films. They produced them quickly, releasing three movies per year. Under the contract, Universal was allowed to make plot revisions, create some original stories, and modernise the setting (making it more topical and cheaper to produce).
raywest ★