Question: Why does Maris keep Niles' last name after they divorce? She has more wealth and social connections than him, so she doesn't seem to have anything to gain.
dizzyd
11th Oct 2023
Frasier (1993)
29th Mar 2023
The Book of Eli (2010)
Question: I see this in nearly all post apocalyptic movies, and in spades in the Book of Eli. The dystopian world they live in is so devoid of necessities that things like chapstick and even water are extremely valuable. OK, fair enough. 30 years ago a nuclear war destroyed society. So how is it that in this world of extreme scarcity, that they are able to keep multiple vehicles running? Beyond gasoline, a car requires a working battery and multiple other fluids, not to mention parts.
Answer: Like you said, society collapsed so the survivors scrounge for food, water, basic needs. Vehicles, their parts, and oil are not basic needs however and are only required when new, primitive, societies start up again. Sure individuals might use a vehicle, but plenty of cars lying around to use until they rust and then you go on to the next. But, these societies can, though crudely, create parts and collect fluids, based on their needs, from whatever they can scavenge. The technology and knowledge is still there, as is the skill to keep cars running. They'd go great lengths to keep them operational, sometimes moreso than food production.
I can appreciate your answer, but 30-year-old gasoline? It just doesn't work. But then it dawned on me that an engine can run on other substances, like grain alcohol. Probably still hard to come by, but nowhere as difficult to create as gasoline would be. So, yep, you're right. Thanks.
Answer: Scavenge and cannibalize from all the derelict cars, and loot abandoned stores?
23rd Aug 2009
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: How is Marty able to play a 1980s videotape on a 1950s television set? Is this just another example of Doc's ahead-of-his-time inventiveness?
Answer: The video camera was in the DeLorean. With the right kind of adapter, which was common enough in the 80s that Doc might've had it on the camera or been able to jury-rig something in the 50s, it would have been possible to connect it into the antenna screws in the back of the TV like an old Atari and play it directly from the camera.
TVs in the 50s had a two prong antennae connection (two screws in the back that you put a prong antennae into) TVs in the mid 80s also had this. The coax connection (the one wire that screws in) was starting to become common, but, the two prong connection would have been more likely on any given TV at the time, so, whatever wire they used to preview recordings probably had that. very convenient that Marty brought those cords with him.
An old Atari 2600 RF Adapter would be how one would link a video camera to an old-fashioned television. A simple-enough part that Doc could probably make one with 1950s technology.
Answer: Video tape system back then could output an NTSC video signal, just like broadcast at the time, and up to HD in the 2000s. Usually there was a switch on the video device to change the output frequency between channels 3 or 4. Depending on what was an open channel in your area.
3rd Sep 2018
Jurassic Park (1993)
Question: Is there any mention in the films or books about how the extinct plants were grown (or recreated/cloned)? I've already suspended disbelief that their extraction of viable DNA is possible and I know seeds can lay dormant for thousands of years, so I can accept whatever made-up technique they claim. I'm not looking for speculation or "it's just a movie" type responses.
Chosen answer: It is never explained in any of the films or the novels. In the novel The Lost World it is very briefly mentioned that InGen maintains a facility where they house prehistoric plants but that is literally the only time it is brought up. It isn't mentioned in the films at all.
Answer: As the DNA came from fossilized tree sap, Probably an offscreen procedure of removing plant DNA directly from that.
22nd Mar 2021
The Abyss (1989)
Question: What was Lindsey referring to when she called Coffey "Roger Ramjet"?
Answer: Roger Ramjet was a 1960's American cartoon character who was extremely patriotic, but dimwitted.
Answer: She's comparing the overzealous, gung-ho Coffey to the 1960s cartoon character, Roger Ramjet, a frenetic, extremely patriotic, though not particularly bright American-hero guy. He worked for the U.S. government and routinely saved the world, using energy pills that gave him brief increased strength.
Answer: Dudley Do-right, Inspector Clouseau or Maxwell Smart, only in a '50's space cartoon, that's Roger Ramjet (I imagine Buzz Lightyear is the nearest pop cultural successor).
17th Apr 2014
The Hangover (2009)
Question: Doug says they are going home with some money, but how much is the damage to the hotel room going to cost?
17th Nov 2020
General questions
Why is it that recent movie adaptations of old TV shows (specifically Starsky and Hutch, Baywatch and 21 Jump Street) were turned into parodies? Why weren't any of them played straight?
Answer: Because the filmmakers of today view therm as parodies. I admit the writing and directing style is not as sophisticated as today's work, but they told good fun stories. Back then they tried to keep costs down by any means necessary.
Answer: It hedges bets in case the action doesn't work, studio can claim they meant for this all along. Also the Mission Impossible films are played straight.
Answer: I'm not claiming to know the definitive answer, but I suspect it is for the same reason there have been remakes of old movies: Hollywood is out of ideas for original movies, tries to keep a steady supply of releases to make money, and it is easier/quicker. Playing them "straight" would require creating a new, meaningful story which is much more demanding than "making fun" of something already done. Moreover, the old TV shows turned into movies probably will do better (make a higher profit) if the audience is not largely limited to the older generation who may have watched the old TV shows. Presumably, the younger generation doesn't find old TV shows appealing and may even already make fun of them. Others do not even know what the TV shows were about, so making a contemporary version would not have the same meaning (or nostalgia) for those viewers. Comedy is something all generations can enjoy... or find more interesting than a lame story about old TV characters who have been forgotten.
I'd concur with this - it's the "four quadrant" idea: movies which appeal to both male and female audiences, and both over - and under-25s. An action-comedy has broader appeal than a pure action/drama, and especially given the three examples referenced are viewed as somewhat cheesy throwbacks now, regardless of the appeal at the time, it makes sense to take a more light hearted approach. Miami Vice is once example that was played straight which could have been ripe for mockery - it got mixed reviews and didn't set the box office aflame.
1st Sep 2020
Dune (2000)
Question: Is there any reason they can't introduce sand worms to other planets in the Duniverse, there to proliferate and produce a greater, more widely distributed quantity of the spice? The newborn worms are called sandtrout, by virtue of being more or less the size of such. Should be easy enough therefore to capture some, surround them with sand in the spaceship to imitate their homeworld, and take them to some other planet the Empire is willing to give up for any other use, then let them grow and produce spice? Much greater abundance, much surer supply (the proverbial eggs in one basket), much closer at hand for any other world in the Universe?
Answer: There could be a number of reasons: introducing non-native species can be devastating to an environment; the sandworms may only be able to survive in certain conditions that other planets lack; they may be unable to reproduce once introduced to a different environment; moving the number of worms needed to produce an adequate supply may be cost-prohibitive; it may be decades before the worms are old enough to produce the spice, the new environment might change the quality and chemical composition of the spice that is produced; political conflicts, and so on.
Answer: If Spice is even half as useful as the novel says, those are all trivial inconveniences compared to the payoff that would make it worth a try.
Next to the fact the unique conditions of Arrakis is what makes the spice melange (not just the worms, but also the planetary conditions) you have to also understand that having the spice production on one planet makes it much easier to control. Whoever controls the spice controls the universe. It wasn't until much later (hundreds of years after the death of the god emperor) they were able to replicate the spice, but before that they didn't even know how the spice was even made. A large reason for this is they had no AI (forbidden) to help analyze the spice melange.
Fine, I accept the monopoly theory.
6th Mar 2020
General questions
I remember seeing a killer scarecrow movie about 20 years ago, but I can't seen to track down which one it was. It definitely wasn't the Asylum "Scarecrow" from 2002. All I remember is that there were human remains (or something else) in a box or casket that needed to be destroyed in order to kill the scarecrow. And I think they were destroyed by having a machine drop a large weight on them, which made the scarecrow explode. I also remember a scene where a character tries to burn the scarecrow and delivers the line "How about a little fire, scarecrow?!" from "Wizard of Oz." I remember the movie being quite bad... but in a fun B-movie kinda way. Anyone know what killer scarecrow movie it was?
Answer: I'll answer my own question. I did some digging and finally found out it was the 1995 movie "Night of the Scarecrow," directed by Jeff Burr.
Answer: Jeepers Creepers?
17th Jan 2005
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
Question: Why is Deb calling from a payphone in the middle of nowhere?
4th Jan 2007
Getting Even With Dad (1994)
Question: Could the police in the film legally pursue Ted Danson's son (Macauley Culkin) the way they did? Merely possibly knowing about a crime doesn't seem like grounds for arrest.
2nd Sep 2019
General questions
Trying to figure what this movie was, saw it when I was a child. 4 characters, 2 children and 2 adults, adult Male looks like Dick Van Dyke. At one point in the movie they are running through a thick forest, singing and locate a 'City in the Woods'. They have all these weird gadgets and doodads, lots of singing in the movie. The characters are a mix of puppets and live action. Can anyone piece this together?
Answer: Except for the mix of puppets and live action, the movie you describe is Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
Answer: Babes in Toyland is my best guess.
6th May 2019
Free Willy (1993)
Question: In reality, do orcas actually understand English? Willy seems to understand Jesse when Jesse teaches him tricks.
Answer: While sounds and words can be used to alert orcas and dolphins, they recognize the hand signals and movements as to what to do.
Answer: Dogs can learn words up to the level of a 3 yr old, and whales are smarter than dogs, so definitely.
Dogs don't learn words, they start to recognize the sound that comes with a certain word like "stay" or "fetch", it's got more to do with the intonation than the actual word. They don't know what the word actually means. They can't imitate it nor can they recognize it in a sentence.
21st Apr 2015
Titanic (1997)
Question: What happened to Rose's mother after the sinking? I'm curious because she made it very clear while she was lacing up Rose's corset, that she was entirely dependent on Rose's match with Cal to survive. Whether she was exaggerating or not, she made the statement that she would be poor and in the workhouses if not for the marriage and Cal's fortune to support them. Obviously, since Rose is presumed dead after the sinking, she did not marry Cal and her mother was not able to benefit from his money. So would she then, in fact, end up poor and in the workhouses as she said? Rose didn't just abandon Cal and that lifestyle to start anew, she also had to abandon her mother. So did she leave her mother to be a poor and squandering worker? At the end of the movie, Rose gives her account of Cal and what happened to him in the following years, but never anything about her mother. I realize this question would probably be more speculation than a factual answer, but I just wondered if there were some clues at the end that I maybe didn't pick up on or if there were some "DVD bonus" or behind the scenes I haven't seen that answered this.
Chosen answer: Because she is considered, in a minor sense, a "villain" in this film for forcing her daughter into a loveless arranged marriage to satisfy her personal wants, most fans probably speculate that she became a poor and penniless seamstress and lived out her life working in a factory. Of course, this is possible, without the financial security of the arranged marriage between Cal and Rose. However, it is difficult to believe that a woman of such status, and who has so many wealthy and powerful friends, would be allowed to languish in abject poverty doing menial labors. I would tend to believe that she probably sold a number of her possessions for money (she did mention that as part of the humiliation she would face if Rose were to refuse Cal's affections), and probably lived off the kindness of others. Given that her daughter was betrothed to a Hockley, his family might have felt an obligation to assist her in finding a suitable living arrangement and a situation for employment. It is also possible that she re-married into wealth. However, this is more unlikely, mainly because back in 1912, it was considered scandalous to re-marry, especially at Ruth's age. However, since Ruth does not make an appearance after surviving the sinking of the Titanic in a lifeboat number 6 (next to Molly Brown), nor is she mentioned again, her fate is left unknown and subject only to speculation.
In that era, with Rose betrothed to Call, Cal would most definitely have provided for Ruth in the lifestyle she was accustomed to. As Cal angrily raged at Rose the morning after her excursion below decks, "You are my wife in custom if not yet in practice ", thus, society would have viewed him a villain had he not cared for Ruth once it was assumed Rose was dead.
Answer: I've wondered that too. I think it was easier to find out what happened to Cal because she said "it was in all the papers." As for her mother, it likely would have only been in the papers local to where she lived when she passed away. This was in an era before television and of course way before the internet. So I think the only way Rose would have been able to keep track of her mom would have been to live in the area or do some investigation. It seems unlikely she wanted to do either one, especially since it would have 'given it away" that Rose had survived in the first place. I agree with the other statements that Cal would have felt obligated to take care of her, and that the people she owed money to would have tried to collect on it as it would have been in "bad form" under the circumstances.
Answer: Her mother's big problem was a heap of debts. It would have looked badly on the debt collectors to go hovering around her after what was assumed to have happened, and in a society where one's reputation was valued highly. They probably simply gave her a degree of debt forgiveness in her bereavement, then Cal, insurance, and even her Mother herself taking a second (rich) husband could've taken care of what was left.
28th Feb 2005
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Question: How does old Biff know how to operate the time machine?
Answer: Old-Biff first comments on the flying DeLorean "I have not seen one of those in 30 years", then he sees what he believes to be two McFly Jr.'s and gets even more suspicious, next he spies on Doc and Marty having an argument about the almanach and how Doc is opposed to time travelling for personal gain! What else does he need to know? And lastly: We're talking about a time machine here! Old-Biff could have stolen it, kept it for how ever long it took him to figure out how it works and returned it at leisure. We don't even have any proof for the days he picked to departed from 2015 or to arrive in 1955. The only verified date is his return from Nov 12 1955 06:38 pm.
Chosen answer: He doesn't, but it's hardly difficult to work out - the date setting readout is pretty obvious. Biff presumably set the date, then just accelerated the car until the time circuits kicked in.
Answer: It's a plot hole. Biff couldn't have known or suspected the DeLorean's time-travel procedure, which necessarily included Biff setting the precise 1955 destination with no previous instruction. Biff just suddenly "knew" how to operate a time machine. He also changed the timeline by going back to 1955, so there's no way he could have returned to the "normal" 2015. But he does.
It's not totally impossible that Biff knew how to the time dial worked. He wasn't suspecting what it was, he knew it was a time travel machine and thus knew what the dial was for and possibly being technically educated knew how to use the time dial.
We know from the first movie that Biff, by age 48, was waxing cars for a living in 1985. He hardly had a "technical education" and it's doubtful he acquired a technical education by age 78 in the year 2015. It was established in the first movie that he had become a timid underachiever.
Alright I agree, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. But he has lived for 78 years by then, till 2015. Even though he has no clue on how the flux capacitor works, he doesn't need to, all he needs to do is work the time circuits, a simple keypad system which even shows which display shows which time. For someone from 2015, it's not so hard to figure out.
Answer: He could have taken however long he wanted to figure it out, as long as he returned it to the exact time he took it from. We don't actually see him time travel with it when he takes it, so, for all we know, he could have taken it to his house and taken the few hours/days he needed to figure out how to use it.
3rd Dec 2018
Gremlins (1984)
Question: If Gizmo is not allowed to come in contact with water, then how is he so clean? Since they can't wash him, wouldn't he be smelly and covered in grime?
Chosen answer: In the original script it was mentioned that mogwais could not reproduce if the water was below 25° (which is why the snow doesn't cause them to multiply). So it's feasible they could be washed with ice water. In addition, there are other methods of cleaning that don't require water (e.g. dry cleaning).
Answer: There's a possibility that Mr. Wing, Gizmo's first caretaker, used dry shampoo to keep him clean.
Answer: Google "dust bath" it's something a number of small animals do to keep clean in the absence of water (pet animals too, like chinchillas).
13th Nov 2018
Being John Malkovich (1999)
13th Jun 2006
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: Is the correct grail made of wood or metal? Was the comment "the cup of a carpenter" referring to the grail looking simple or the substance it was made of? It looks like gilded wood but makes a sound when picked up like it was metal.
Answer: It seems to have had a layer of metal foil applied to wood or clay.
Answer: It is made of wood, possibly with a metal base. The line about it being the "cup of a carpenter" is primarily referring to the fact that it's simple and unadorned, but could also be interpreted to include the material.
It was actually made of clay.
9th Aug 2018
Lord of the Flies (1963)
Question: One of the boys, called Piggy, wears glasses. Piggy's glasses become an important, prized object, because the boys can use the lenses to refract the sun's rays, and thus start fires. It is fairly well established, that, on a hot day, in bright sunshine, one can focus the sun's rays through a magnifying glass to set light to combustible material. (I've done it myself, although it took me rather longer than the book or film suggested, and it only made a very small flame.) But could you use spectacles, that people wear to correct defective vision, to start a fire in this way? Surely, if this was possible, wouldn't it mean that when people who wear glasses went out in hot sunny weather, then they would burn their eyes?
Answer: The key factor there is the focus of the light over distance. The light coming through the glass is refracted and focused on a single point. But it's bent like a ribbon. There is a "sweet spot" so to say where you have to hold the magnifying glass or lens at just the right distance and angle from the object to focus the center point of the light on it. Typically, this means holding the glass out a good several inches or even a foot or so away from what you wish to ignite to get the focal point of the light on it. Someone wearing glasses has them pretty much right up to their face. And so the light can't reach a focal point. Also keep in mind that for focusing the light through a lens, it needs to be angled just right for the light to go through it at the optimal angle and focus. Usually this means facing the sun directly. Typically people don't look up directly at the sun, at least not for more than a second. Especially with glasses on.
Answer: Only convex magnifying lenses can be used to focus the sun's rays in such a way as to start a fire. A convex magnifying lens is bowed outwards on both sides. Such lenses are found in magnifying glasses, binoculars and cameras, for examples. Conventional spectacles to correct vision are convex on one side and concave (bowed inward) on the other side, and so cannot be used to start fires. If Piggy's glasses are used to start fires, then he is wearing convex magnifying lenses (which would only be useful for up-close reading purposes, and they would be utterly useless for any other vision correction) ; and, if indeed he is wearing truly convex magnifying lenses for some reason, then his retinas could certainly be damaged by even glancing at the sun.
Answer: Lenses for nearsightedness would not work, but they could be corrected for the purpose by filling their concave areas with clear water, which would make the whole object correctly refract sunlight.
That's a reported "survival" trick (placing a drop of clear water in the center of a concave lens so as to focus the sun's rays) ; but I've never had any success with it.
14th Aug 2018
Saw IV (2007)
Question: Just wondering, usually a sequel takes part after the previous movie (eg Saw II is a sequel to Saw I) and a prequel is before the previous movie (ie Star Wars episode 1 compared to Star Wars episode IV) but to me Saw IV is set at the same time of Saw III, is this called a samequel?
Chosen answer: I believe the term for two storylines taking place simultaneously is "paraquel."
Answer: A mid-quel?! an "equal"?.
"Equal" gets my vote. :-).
Answer: The way I understand it, Saw IV takes place after Saw III, not at the same time, so it would be a sequel. Detective Kerry and John Kramer die in Saw III and are dead in Saw IV. Although, when sequels do show flashbacks, that doesn't mean it's set in the same time as the previous film. A film that takes place during the same timeframe as a previous film in the series is called a midquel. A film that is centered around the same event as a previous film, but shown from a different perspective can also be called a "twin film."
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: One could say force of habit and all the years, but also because she is clingy and incapable, and may be hanging on to her whipping-boy/servant if only psychologically (furthermore, she gets into legal trouble and may wish to spread the stain and disgrace onto the Cranes out of vengeance).
dizzyd
I think she always wanted Niles to "come crawling back."