Question: When Stanley first met up with Charlie and their dates at the Coco Bongo, why did the admission guy refuse to let him inside? The guy knows Charlie (they greet each other), and he allowed the two women to follow Charlie inside, so why not Stanley?
lionhead
4th May 2024
The Mask (1994)
4th May 2024
The Fly (1986)
Question: When Seth teleports a plate with a piece of steak on it, why doesn't the steak merge with the plate?
Answer: Short answer, because the plate doesn't have DNA. Initially the pod was making synthetic versions of what was being teleported, which is why it turned the baboon inside out and made the steak taste funny but inanimate objects appeared OK. It was only later, after reprogramming, that the pods could basically identify tissue to teleport living organisms. However, with the fly present, the pod's programming couldn't distinguish there were two separate living organisms and ended up combining them. It didn't happen with the plate because the pod recognized it as a separate object.
Answer: Something non-biological can't merge with something biological.
Except that later on, a portion of the telepod merges with the Brundlefly.
21st Apr 2024
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Question: Could it be considered attempted murder on both Peter and Harry's parts when they both took a turn throwing the pumpkin bomb at each other until it exploded near Harry's face after their fight? Those pumpkin bombs are designed to kill, and Peter knew that when he threw it back at him, although I'm not sure how the explosion didn't kill Harry.
Answer: Well, Harry was obviously trying to kill Peter, so yes, that was attempted murder. Peter, at that point, is heavily influenced by the symbiote, causing him to not feel remorse or empathy towards Harry. It angered him that Harry would throw the bomb at him while his back was turned to him and therefore did commit attempted murder by throwing it back at him. Harry survived because he was spiked up on his father's muscle enhancers. Although he should be deaf and blind after.
21st Apr 2024
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
21st Apr 2024
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: When Dooku invited Obi-Wan to join him and destroy the Sith, what did he really want? Surely he didn't think that Obi-Wan would believe him?
Answer: I don't think that Dooku, nor Palpatine, really cared much about being actual Sith Lords. They wanted to be rulers in their own rights. Hence why Palpatine becomes Emperor Palpatine and abandons the "Darth Sidious" title. Dooku might have "destroyed the Sith" in the sense that he would kill Darth Sidious/Palpatine with Obi-wan's help.
21st Apr 2024
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: Before the Clone Wars, what situations did Jedi handle most of the time? I only ask because at Padme's apartment, Obi-wan says it's not their job to investigate the assassination attempt. Anakin says that local security could guard the apartment; it's not a matter for Jedi. So apparently, Jedi don't watch over people nor investigate crimes. What do they do?
Answer: Their job is to protect the integrity of the republic with diplomacy and advice to politicians. They do not enforce laws or rules. They can also be security for senators or be taken to places in crisis to help resolve difficult matters (like the blockade of Naboo). They protect and secure. That was their job during the time of the 'old' republic.
So, in a way, are the Jedi similar to involving the FBI in a situation, instead of contacting your town/city/county police?
Maybe more like UN Peacekeepers.
21st Apr 2024
Anaconda (1997)
Question: Is there any truth that an anaconda will regurgitate its prey so it can keep feeding, or was it made up for the film?
Answer: A snake can regurgitate its food, but they do this mostly if they are in danger or stressed, not to go after another prey or swallow it again so it's easier to digest. The food is usually quite a weight on their body and takes long to digest, so the snake could regurgitate it to become mobile again if threatened.
17th Apr 2024
From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
18th Jun 2014
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Question: At the beginning of the movie, Peter asks Voldemort if they can perform the ritual without Harry. Why? Does he now feel bad for betraying Harry's parents?
Answer: There are several reasons here. Peter Pettigrew regretted betraying the Potters and knows he is a lowly coward for having done so and for obeying Voldemort out of fear. He also knows that Harry spared his life during the confrontation in the Shrieking Shack (in Prisoner of Azkaban) when Lupin and Sirius were about to kill him. Because of Harry's mercy, Pettigrew is now magically bound to Harry with a life debt. In the books, this will later cost Pettigrew his life when he hesitates to kill Harry (in Deathly Hallows) and his silver hand instead fatally strangles him for defying Lord Voldemort.
In the movies, Pettigrew NEVER regretted betraying Harry's parents and, on the contrary, was actually proud of doing so.
Where did you get that idea from? He is a coward and cowardice controls him. Not pride.
It is mentioned on the internet sites like TV Tropes, Villains Wiki, and Pure Evil Wiki. These sites mention that movie version of Pettigrew is far more evil than his book version.
None of those sites indicate he was proud of what he had done or does. They just mention the movies don't show Peter having regrets like he does in the books. Doesn't mean he doesn't have it. We see very little of him in any of the movies anyway. He is still only known as a coward and nothing more of him is shown than that.
In the books, he betrayed James and Lily out of cowardice, while in the films, he betrayed them willingly.
20th Nov 2014
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Question: With Peter being such a coward, why did he actually go and find Voldemort?
Answer: Because he is far more afraid of what would happen to him if Voldemort returned and Peter hadn't assisted in it.
In the movies, Peter Pettigrew is less cowardly than in the books. In this movie, he never shows any sign of cowardice and is depicted as a ruthless, cold-blooded character.
He cowers away when Voldemort accuses him of returning out of fear, not loyalty. He is Voldemort's pet, and does as he says without question because he is afraid of him. That does make him cold-blooded though.
1st Feb 2024
General questions
What are some movies that took an unusually long time to film and release?
Answer: "Roar," written and directed by Noel Marshall, took five years to film. It wasn't worth the effort.
Answer: Boyhood from Richard Linklater comes to mind, which was filmed over 11 years from 2002 to 2013, so a child growing up could be depicted accurately with his own and parents' aging, etc.
Answer: The movie "The Plot Against Harry" was shot and completed in the late '60s. It didn't get a proper release until 1989.
Answer: The Outlaw. It was made in 1941 but was not released because the Hollywood Production Code didn't like the way it featured Jane Russell's breasts. It was released for seven weeks in San Francisco in 1943, but pulled because of complaints from the Legion of Decency. It was released in 1946, in Chicago, Georgia and Virginia, with six minutes of footage cut from the film. They had trouble advertising it so it ran in a limited number of theaters. However, it sold out all showings making a tidy profit. It was released again at the beginning of 1947, in one theater by the end of the year it made $2 million. It was released again in 1950 in 25 theaters. There was a release in 1952. By 1968 it had grossed over $20 million.
Answer: The John Wayne movie, "Jet Pilot", was made in 1950 and didn't get released until 1957. David O'Russell's "Accidental Love" began production in 2008 and was released in 2015. Another is "My Apocalypse" that was filmed in 1997 and released in 2008. "Tulip Fever (2017) " also took several years to reach theaters after undergoing extensive editing and recutting. It failed at the box office.
Answer: The film "The Other Side of the Wind" by Orson Welles, currently available on Netflix. It was shot between 1970 and 1976, then only partially edited by Orson Welles (due to many complications) before his sudden death in 1985. His final film was completed and released in 2018.
Answer: Castaway. They filmed Tom Hanks' scenes as a chunky, middle-aged executive, then paused for a year while he lost weight and got buff for the scenes where he had been stranded on the island for a while.
Answer: There is a movie called "Dark Blood". It was released in 2012, but they started making it in 1993. Unfortunately, the star of the movie River Phoenix (older brother of Joaquin Phoenix) died due to a drug overdose when the movie was 80% finished, and the movie was shelved for 19 years. They eventually finished the movie when the director pulled the negatives out of storage to prevent them from being destroyed because the insurance company refused to keep paying for the storage.
2nd Mar 2024
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
3rd Apr 2021
Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979)
Question: According to Werner Herzog, the rats that appear in the film behaved better than Klaus Kinski during the shoot. Is this true?
Answer: True, though the rats comment was deliberate hyperbole. Kinski suffered from mental illness much of his life. He was often volatile, erratic, disruptive, and sometimes violent on movie sets. Kinski and Herzog had a long professional collaboration but also a friendship pre-dating Herzog's directing career. Otherwise, though Herzog admired Kinski's talent, he probably would never have tolerated working with him; he is the only director who worked with him more than once. Herzog did a documentary about Kinski after his death, which included footage of his on-set rants. Clips are on YouTube.
Moreover, Herzog was initially reluctant to hire Kinski in Fitzcarraldo movie because he was afraid that Kinski would go "totally bonkers" if trapped in the Amazon for any length of time, and his fears proved to be well-founded.
To correct a slight factual error in the answer: Director Alfred Vohrer worked on more movies with Kinski than Herzog did.
19th May 2005
Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995)
Question: What is that gun thing that is pushed into the guy's neck after he says "I thought this was a currency exchange?" Is the guy dead or just knocked out?
Answer: Knocked out. It was a hand held tranquilizer gun like most vets use on animals to put them to sleep.
Answer: I've always wondered this and I don't think you're going to find a good answer. I know everyone is saying it was a tranquilizer. But tranquilizers wear off and if one of those people they gave an injection to regained consciousness it could be a big problem for them. eg. The cops in the subway. That's why I think it was probably a fatal injection of something.
It's not a fatal injection. Remember, Simon says, "I'm a soldier, not a monster." And earlier, one of the henchmen yelled at Otto, "No shooting." Simon doesn't intend to kill anyone (though later he changes his mind when he's ready to blow up the ship). The only people who killed anyone were Otto, Katya, and McClane.
I'm pretty sure the bombing at the beginning of the movie killed people. Plus, the bomb in the subway would have killed a whole bunch of people. Saying Simon doesn't intend to kill anyone is quite naive.
5th Jan 2024
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: When Luke says he can't kill his own father, Obi-Wan tells him, "Then the Emperor has already won." But if Luke actually did kill Darth Vader, he would be left to fight the Emperor by himself, or could even be influenced to switch sides. The Emperor does try this later, suggesting that Luke replace Vader. How would that be a triumph for Obi-Wan and Yoda?
Answer: Obi-Wan didn't think it would be an immediate victory or Luke would rush to then combat the Emperor. His reasoning is that eliminating Vader would weaken the Emperor's power by removing his main enforcer. Once Vader was gone, Obi-Wan and Luke would have to devise a strategy on how to defeat the Emperor. Leaving Vader alive leaves the Emperor's power intact. Obi-Wan trusts that the Emperor will never sway Luke to the Dark side. However, Luke is unable to face destroying his own father.
So, you think they wanted Luke to fight Vader alone again, defeat him, and they would deal with the Emperor later? Instead of Luke allowing Vader to "capture" him and take him to the Emperor?
Facing his father would be facing his fears. Facing his fears is what will keep Luke away from the dark side. That was the first step in beating the emperor. Luke is understood enough in the end that killing his father is not the answer, but he did manage to beat him. And that was the victory. Because that caused Anakin to turn back to the light side and kill the emperor. Obi-Wan and Yoda can't tell Luke everything he needs to do, some he has to do himself.
5th Jan 2024
General questions
In the 2000s, many people enjoyed and appreciated movies from the '80s. Why is it that, in the 2020s, movies from the '90s and early 2000s need to be remade/"updated"?
Answer: Honestly, a huge factor is the financial one. Due to many differing reasons (50%+ drop in physical media sales over the last 10 years, streaming making content available for very cheap, skyrocketing production costs, inflation, etc.), studios have been losing money at a much greater rate than they have in the past. The industry has become very financially volatile. Therefore, brand recognition is very important. A familiar brand is typically a safer bet than an original idea. This is why sequels, remakes, adaptations, etc. have become the norm, and are given huge budgets... they're usually more likely to turn a profit. If people want to turn this around and have the studios start taking major risks and making more original films again, they're going to have to actually go see original movies in theaters with some regularity, consider buying DVDs/Blu-Rays again, etc. Basically, vote with your wallet... otherwise we'll continue to get nothing but remakes, sequels, etc.
I completely agree with your response. I think another, tiny factor is that trends and technology move faster now. In 2000, life still had many basic things in common with the 80s, despite changes in fashion and computers. Now, in early 2024, a show/movie from 2014 can already be "outdated": mentioning social media platforms that are less popular now, referring to social media trends, using words and phrases that are now considered offensive, etc.
Answer: I think this is mostly because of the advancements in CGI and special effects. Perhaps they think that better special effects will make the movie better. Also, if they think remaking a movie will make money, they will make it.
Money does seem to be a factor. '80s - early 2000s nostalgia has been a big trend for the past few years.
5th Jan 2024
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: Why were the people walking towards the ferry so desperate to get Ray's car? Considering the power was on in that area, the ferry was operating, and the army were driving round in humvees, tanks, and trucks a few scenes earlier, then surely Ray wouldn't have been the only person with a car?
Answer: He may not be the only person with a car, but you can imagine there are fewer cars than people around, since a lot of the people there came from areas where the cars had stopped working. Or else they wouldn't be walking. That's why they were going on the ferry, for transport to anywhere.
Answer: Agree with the other answer, but would add that Ray had figured out that cars were not working because the starter solenoids were knocked out by the alien's technology. He and his friend fixed Ray's car. Unlike military mechanics or marine engineers, most people were likely clueless about what caused the problem, didn't know how to fix a vehicle, or lacked the means, particularly in a crisis. People were desperate to acquire any car they could.
5th Jan 2024
Grease (1978)
Question: Was Principal McGee only bluffing when she announced that the "pictures" of the mooners were "on their way to Washington" to simply scare the three into admitting? Or was she serious about that and therefore wanted to give those responsible a chance to come in?
Answer: It's definitely a bluff. I highly doubt the FBI can identify people by butt.
5th Jan 2024
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
5th Jan 2024
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: The ending of Back to the Future, Marty says he's not going to the lake as the car is 'wrecked'. All the family react as if he's talking about the BMW. They rush out and see it is fine. But they know Marty has the Toyota truck - why would they not think he meant his car is wrecked'? I know he says car not "truck" but he's talking about going up to the lake - he wouldn't be going in his Dad's BMW. So is this a mistake or bad script writing? (01:49:00 - 01:51:00)
Answer: Why wouldn't he go in the BMW? Going to the lake doesn't mean off-road driving, it might be a nice paved road all the way to a touristy spot. I don't think it's a mistake or bad writing.
Answer: It would've simply been down to the pure shock of what Marty was saying. The second he said "The car's wrecked", they dropped what they were doing and went to check. They didn't even care about the first part of Marty's sentence at this point, as all that was going through their heads would've been "Has something happened to the car?"
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: Because Stanley didn't appear to be part of the group, as Stanley doesn't immediately follow them. The bouncer, at least, didn't see it that way. Charlie also doesn't say anything to the bouncer about Stanley before he himself goes through.
lionhead