Datasets:

yarathealmighty

/

dumps

like 0

In the movie The Pianist, just before the end of the movie Szpilman was caught by the German officer at the house when he was trying to open a can. And then he asked Szpilman to play piano. Why did the German officer do like that? Because of Szpilman is a pianist?

Captain Wilm Hosenfeld (the officer seen in the film) was one of the few Christians left in Nazi Occupied Europe. He held the command not to kill higher than any of the commands to kill innocent civilians. Many Germans ignored Hitler's orders late in the war and a large number never knew about the "Final Solution".

This is regarding the infamous cheating by Charles Ingram on the UK version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire". In the documentary Millionaire: A Major Fraud, one guy who worked on the show says that he suspected that some of Ingram's accomplices in the audience may have had some sort of communication with the outside. As an example, he was saying there they could have had a device on them transmitting audio, and someone "with access to research materials" listening to that, while providing the answers back, for example by four vibrating devices located on four different parts of the recipient's body. The documentary did not mention anything else regarding that. Were the people who helped him just knowledgeable enough to know all the answers? Or did they somehow get them from outside of the studio? Was this ever uncovered?

From the same Wikipedia page that you link, there is a section for the trial and recorded evidence. If there had been evidence of audio equipment, this would be the section where this information would be included. Instead, the production company produced video evidence of some audience members coughing when Ingram read a correct answer aloud. (There may have been some instances where the audience members whispered "No" to one another when an incorrect answer was being discussed). In particular, a lecturer named Tecwen Whittock was also fined and given a sentence (as did both Charles and his wife). Here is some relevant info from the page: The show's production company Celador suspended the £1 million payout after they suspected Ingram had cheated. Production staff accused Ingram and his wife of defrauding the show by having an accomplice in the audience, lecturer Tecwen Whittock, cough when Ingram read out a correct answer . . . Celador employees produced and reviewed various compilation tapes before and after contacting the police. Celador and their editing company, Editworks, retained all the tapes during the case and reproduced all tapes for the court. . . . The prosecution alleged that, of the 192 coughs recorded during his second-night performance, 32 were recorded from the ten Fastest Finger First contestants, and that 19 of the 32 coughs heard on the video tape were "significant". The prosecution asserted that these "significant" coughs were by Whittock, each falling any time the correct answer had been spoken.

This is a question that bothers me for a really long time. For example, Russians in every (not literally, but you get the point) Hollywood movies/TVshows are acted by English-speaking actors. It is really annoying to see the roles where “fluent” or “native” speaker twists a foreign language. It is embarrassing. I'd like to know, is there any reason, why Hollywood does not use native speakers. I'll bet there are tons of different language speaker actors around LA, but still, in production, we hear ridiculous goo. And I don't whine about main roles, I can forgive Julia Roberts or George Clooney if they have a line or two in Mandarin. But, when there is a tiny part of the picture with 4 Armenian mobsters, why they could not be real Armenian actors, so it feels right in the details? Is there any reason not to use native speaker actors? I am from Estonia, it is a really small country (about 1.3 mln people), but even Estonian actors are available in LA, and I am pretty sure, they are not more expensive while more than good professionally for those small roles, which rarely pop up. So why Hollywood still use Serbians who never spoke Serbian? Or Russians? There are hordes of them in LA, certainly. Why not pick them in Russian roles? I admit, French, Italian and Spanish have much better coverage, but even German is frequently the rubbish. Even when the writer is made a good job for background details it goes downhill (in this aspect) after casting... There must be a rational reason for the situation. Maybe it's about trade unions? Edit on starting bounty I have read the answers below for some days now, and I must admit: I am not convinced. I think it is good to start a bounty to call more opinions to reveal more possibilities. Most important, I state: for me, this question is about authenticity, I want to believe the story told on the screen. Bad use of language is a real turnoff, for me. Like there is a lot of people, who find disturbing when certain dialect of English is not accurate. I analyze some hypotheses so far, to show, why I can't accept those as an Answer. Reason 1: it is very hard to find foreigner actors in Hollywood Hollywood is soon a century a place that sucks young actors around to globe into. For now, there should be them in any nation and any age, both men and women. Certainly not any combination of any, but still. There is no other place like this on Earth, to my knowledge. Same time European small studios use most times native speakers in corresponding roles, whenever and as close as possible. As from @AryanSonwatikar comment, seems Bollywood acts the same way. Reason 2: budget does not allow Hollywood shows have budgets in the industry no comparable with anything else. If we think a bit how much is contributed to visual integrity and right shooting places, for example, and how much things are developed in this area during 50-60 years, this is been all in the name of being more believable. Compared with all those expenses seems argumenting with a budget in native speaking actors topic somehow hard to grasp. Are they more expensive in small roles? Would be filling small roles with unknown actors more expensive than using known actors as fake natives? Rather not, I think. Of course, unknown adds risks, so from this aspect there are downsides. Including rookies (or different work ethics or culture) has always its benefits and worries. Still, it seems more about the next reason: Reason 3: being risk-averse This seems so far most convincing. Still, it is risky to belittle your audience, too. Or? Here belong also networking: using people who you already know or are in certain circles already. Use them, they have already proved themself... Reason 4: actors box office value Unless we talking about leading actors or supporting actors, this seems not relevant to me. Reason 5: casting (and actually nobody) does not understand it anyway and can't tell how authentic it was (speaking some native language) This is a tricky one. I want to apologize already for everyone who finds following somehow insulting. But this is really hard to understand to me. I try to explain it from my perspective (it is certainly not one-to-one with everyone, but still I found it pretty common here, where I live). If I hear somewhere in the World some (not known to me) Estonian to speak whatever another language I almost always can point out that the speaker is Estonian. Takes years and years every day speaking to mask your mother tongue, to get it sound really fluent (depends also from the person and how close is language to yours). And, for some degree I can use the same method for some shortlist of other languages, I have more experience. Now, following my own (but common here) experience it is hard to understand, how casting managers can't make a difference between being fluent or being English trying to fake? I understand that on casting is almost impossible to tell, does actor really speak Latvian or maybe Lithuanian, but for attentive listener should be not too hard to detect your mother tongue in the speaker's "native" language. Or?

I see this has three bases… Budget Actor's box-office value Whether or not casting can tell the difference. This is a big one! Let me take a slightly different perspective, as I work in London not Hollywood. Non-British actors playing "British" for staters. You've all heard Mel Gibson playing Scots, or Dick van Dyke playing a Cockney. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Across the years, the number of Americans with simply abysmal British accents is heart-breaking. I can hear minor aberrations in British accents like you can tell the difference between Estonian and Serbian. I can't. Most people outside those areas couldn't, so they all get through on Reason 3. Even British actors playing British parts don't always get it right - Game of Thrones… a whole slew of dodgy "Northern" accents, enough to make you wince. Some were spot on, Sean Bean and Mark Addy set the bar, as true native Northerners, Sheffield to be precise. Richard Madden - a Scotsman - did a really good job of copying them. After that it all went a bit downhill. Neither casting nor 90% of the show's audience would be able to tell that a great percentage of the rest of the 'Northern' cast only managed "something that might be somewhere near Manchester if you're not listening too carefully". They also got through on Reason 3. Anyway, back to Americans playing Brits - and vice versa. Over recent years, many actors have spent considerable effort brushing up on their accents. Compare Hugh Laurie in House Season 1 vs Season 8. To start with I don't know what accent he was trying to do. By the end, I'd say he'd pretty much nailed it. Another I've worked with - Elle Fanning. In Maleficent… not so good. In The Great, nailed it. Some are so good that once you've checked where they were born on IMDB, you still wonder how they did it. Such as Meryl Streep and Christian Bale fit this category. If casting want a certain character actor, then the job has traditionally gone to the best actor for the part, not necessarily the best accent copyist. This is, fortunately changing, but because the actors are taking the time to actually get the accents right. The entire industry is becoming much more aware of this in recent years. I've worked on shows where to play a Russian, you have to be a Russian, German to play a German, etc. I've also played parts myself as a German, in German - but on that occasion the script supervisor was so bi-lingual it was impossible to tell which was her native language. She made certain no-one got it wrong. If anyone's accent slipped, we'd be going again. So - there is hope on the horizon.

What does Elm depict in A Nightmare on Elm Street? Does Elm tree represent something bad in the horror context?

Elm Street is one of the most common street names in the United States. If you exclude numbers (because numbers in a title are strongly connoted to having several in a series, whether it's streets or movies), the most common names are Park, Main, Oak, Pine, Maple, Cedar, Elm. So “Elm Street” has a “generic street” feel to it. In fiction, Elm and Pine have traditionally dominated over the other tree names that are more popular in real life. Park is even above, but the word “park” has connotations (of nature, empty spaces, that kind of stuff) that “elm” doesn't have. This points towards Elm or Pine as a generic street name for a movie.

Can someone please explain the use and significance of flyover sequences between scenes in TV shows and movies? (For example, the TV show House M.D. has flyover shots between scenes of the outsides of the hospital that Dr. House works in.) Typically, what effect is a flyover sequence expected to have on the viewer?

To establish a time / place To establish that is it is now day / night To give weight to the scene based on the area... city / rural / ghetto / etc. To break up a light / dark scene The simplest answer could also be that they wanted to have an easy transition between scenes. You can't always just cut sce

Lately, I've been watching a bunch of Swedish-language TV commercials from the late 1960s and 1970s. Here is an example from 1969: What confuses me about this is that Sweden only had one TV channel (SVT) until 1969, and even after that, it was only the "SVT2", which was just the non-commercial, government-owned "secondary" TV channel. (And you had to buy a special hardware box to be able to view it!) Until sometime in the 1980s, possibly even the late 1980s, there existed no such thing as a commercial TV channel in Sweden/Swedish. To the best of my knowledge, satellite and cable channels only started appearing that late, and with very limited reach. It's important to mention that while SVT1 and SVT2 did have "informational" segments, which sort of looked and sounded like commercials, it was always for non-commercial, government-related things -- never for company-owned brands of food or anything like I'm talking about here. The videos I'm referring to all are for various commercial products, and are both labeled as and look as if they are from the late 1960s and 1970s. What could explain this? Did they really have commercials in movie theaters? Is that where these were exclusively shown? That seems very odd to me somehow, but I guess it's the only possible explanation? Either that, or I've grossly misunderstood everything about Sweden's history.

I don't know if that's the case in Sweden, but in Spain there weren't commercial channels until the 1990s and there have always been (and are) commercials in the public, government-owned channels. We have cinema advertising, too.

What's the closest real equivalent to E Corp from Mr. Robot? Not necessarily that they're super evil, but that they are present in many different industries and their products are commonplace. Is there any further evidence inside the show or commentary from its makers if this company is a reference to a specific real company?

According to this article, which quotes the words of the creator of the show (Sam Esmail), the Evil Corp is based on Enron. And by the way, Esmail told us that the “E” in Evil Corp is “totally the Enron logo.” Then he laughed. “It’s not like they’re going to sue us for it.”

I just saw the new Sam Mendes film 1917 and was really impressed with the continuous shot approach, especially given the setting in the trenches of WW1. I've seen this effect done before and know there are different ways of making a whole movie using this effect. What methods were used in this film specifically to give it the single continuous shot effect?

Similar techniques were used in Birdman which was also visualised as a single shot, and the opening scene of The Revenant. Usually, if you're looking out for them you can see the wipes they use - watch for someone crossing camera in such a way as they completely cover the shot, or in Birdman, they used transitions between rooms, covered by CGI to keep the central actor apparently in a continuous motion.

In Game of Thrones we have seen Gendry the bastard of Robert Baratheon who browed away from Dragonstone, apparently never to be seen again. Where did he go? From season 3.

Speculation is over - Gendry is back in Season 7 ... [though no-one is saying what he will be doing, of course] From Radio Times - This Game of Thrones actor showed up to the premiere and basically confirmed his long-awaited return Row row row your boat - guess who's BACK in Westeros?

In Men in Black (1997), the neuralyzer devices employ a red flash. A few years later, in Men in Black II (2002), the neuralyzers have apparently been upgraded or modified, and now use a blue flash. In Men in Black III (2012), a 1969-time-travel scene shows a young Agent K using a neuralyzer powered by a belt-mounted battery pack. Agent K originally retired at the end of Men in Black, during the age of red neuralyzers. Yet at the end of Men in Black II, K is shown activating a blue neuralyzer located in the torch of the Statue of Liberty, using his watch. The implication seems very strong that this neuralyzer was K's secret, as it is activated by a watch which he kept in the locker, with the key hidden across town. So how could the Statue's neuralyzer be blue? Wouldn't it be red, as that was the last "version" of neuralyzer he used before retiring in 1997?

I think since in the first movie the red one is not used on more than about 5 people at a time, but the blue ones in the 2nd and 3rd are used on about 40 people at once. The blue ones are for mass neuralization, while the red ones are basic shorter-range neuralizers.

In the pilot of Marco Polo, Marco is asked in front of the Khan's court which land he thinks has the most beautiful women. He answers: In Italy we have a saying: „The true sweetness of wine is one flavor.“ What is the meaning of the idiom in general and in the context of the scene?

The way I interpret it, is that while there are a lot of different flavours of wine, ultimately what we all enjoy from wine is the alcohol, which is the "one flavour" he's referring to. The same can be said for women. While there are women from different ethnic backgrounds around the world, what we men enjoy ultimately, is the woman herself, no matter where from. The "flavor" part can be left to interpretation, whether he was just referring to women in general or the taste of their parts.

Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory has many personality quirks, some of which make him a tad hard to take at times. He has difficulty expressing empathy He has a good vocabulary but has difficulty understanding subtlety He has a hard time with humor, especially sarcasm He's completely egocentric He could not make friends as a child Prefers repetitive routine and gets upset with change He is deaf to verbal cues He doesn't understand non-verbal communication He finds it difficult to look people in the eye unless they are close friends These are all symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome. I have seen every episode several times but do not remember hearing any reference to this outside of his mother "had him tested" for an unspecified disorder. Is it ever mentioned in the series?

According to the character's actor, Jim Parsons the answer is a confident "no", however he does happily admit (and has extensively spoken about) Sheldon's 'asperger's-like' characteristics. JP: When I was first asked about it, I literally hadn’t… Well, I’d heard of the disease. Do they call it a disease? I don’t want to be… AVC: A disorder. JP: Disorder, thank you. How ridiculous now, looking back, that I said that. I’d heard of the disorder but I didn’t know what it was at all. And when I asked the writers if Sheldon had Asperger’s, they said, “No, he does not. That’s not what we’re doing.” - AVC Interview and Q. As the show’s gotten bigger, you’ve been adopted by more than one community. Rather than say “Hey, do you want to be a spokesman for, you know, Pepsi and we’ll pay you X?” people say, “You are now the spokesman for Asperger’s.” How do you deal with that? JP: Asperger’s came up as a question within the first few episodes. I got asked about it by a reporter, and I had heard of it, but I didn’t know what it was, specifically. So I asked the writers—I said, “They’re asking me if Sheldon has Asperger’s,” and they were like, “No.” And I said, “OK.” And I went back and I said, “No.” And then I read some about it and I went, OK, well, if the writers say he doesn’t, then he doesn’t, but he certainly shares some qualities with those who do. I like the way it’s handled. - Adweek Interview Similarly, the show's co-creators Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady head indicated that from a writing perspective, the decision was taken not to have him positively indicated as having a specific condition because it would make it easier for them to change his character if they needed to: "We chose not to diagnose Sheldon," says "Big Bang" co-creator Chuck Lorre. "Big Bang" co-creator, Bill Prady, who based Sheldon on computer programmers he used to work with, has said they were afraid that if they labeled Sheldon an Aspie, they would have too much responsibility to depict the condition accurately within a sitcom. - NJ.com Prady also stated in an interview with Slate that Sheldon's quirks are uniquely "Sheldony" without necessarily being part of a wider condition. "I just think of his actions as 'Sheldony.' Some things feel instinctively correct for his character," says Prady, who recalls one software colleague who couldn't go anywhere alone that he hadn't been to before. "He'd say, 'I can't go to 47th Street Photo by myself.' And it was maybe three blocks away. It was never questioned. Quirks were never challenged—they were simply accepted as a quality of the person." "Are these things Asperger's?" he asks. "I don't know."

In The Prestige, Nikola Tesla builds the magician Rupert Angier a teleport machine that also ends up duplicating the object placed inside of it. It is further revealed that Tesla is bankrupt, and that Angier is his last financier. If Tesla was so desperate for money, why did he not use his machine to create funds before he sold it to Angier? I guess it's true that Edison was a better businessman...

Apart from the obvious explanation that this was just not considered in the story and wouldn't have fit there, there is evidence from the movie itself and its depiction of Nikola Tesla. Tesla was afraid of the machine's power once he realized what he actually created there. Remember that when he gives it to Angier he also writes something similar to The only advice for the machine's usage I can give to you is, destroy it! So Tesla built that thing for him, but he also realized how much power this thing actually conveys and the potential danger this machine poses outweights Angier's possible use from it. I think he mentioned before that he thinks humanity might not be ready for all his ideas, and this machine is an instance of that. One might ask then, why he still gave it to Angier instead of just destroying it right away or not finishing it at all. But I'd assume it is partly his pride in having achieved such a scientific breakthrough as well as his inclination to honor the contract and promise he gave Angier. In addition to that it might also support the common motif of the scientist who only realized the true danger of his invention after the fact and is reluctant to take full responsibility for it, just let Angier take the hard decision to destroy such an amazing technological achievement. Last but not least, Tesla didn't seem too inclined in making money by dirty tricks instead of by genuine appreciation of his developments. He wasn't really the person who did all this to make a fast dollar, but for the progress of mankind and if he would take money, then because his products are well-received and appreciated, but not just by misusing them to produce "dirty" money. In this regard he might indeed be seen as a worse businessman compared to Edison, who didn't always play fair afterall. (And in turn this contrast between Tesla and Edison is also used in the movie to emphasize the rivaly between Borden and Angier.)

In season 8 episode 1, Arya asks Gendry to forge her a dragonglass weapon (which we can see drawn). What is the purpose of this weapon?

While i cannot be certain, it appears it may be an Atl-atl or a Spear Thrower The user holders on end using a lever or rope to then propel the spear faster and further. the spear itself is shorter and expendable so perhaps that is what she wants. the design doesn't look quite right for one but it looks similar at least I'll be honest its a bit of a stretch but it was what first came to my mind when i saw it

In the movie The Matrix Revolutions, Agent Smith possessed the body of Bane in the real world. But he was just an AI program, nothing but some code that exists in the Matrix, so how could he end up in the real world? Machines can do that using AI, but Smith is not a machine. So what is the explanation for this?

Several examples in fiction exist which effectively allow artificial agents to become, possess, or overwhelm human beings. One film ("The Thirteenth Floor," after the novel "Simulacron-3", by Daniel F. Galouye), has the main character as a program climbing its way out of processors to take control of a rogue human being and steal his wife. In the Matrix series, that example is a rogue security program (Smith) which finds a way to transmit itself via a human being (Bane) to a human-machine interface (Neo, or Neo's equipment). This doesn't mean that the Smith program 'ended up in the real world', per se. It means Smith exploited a route of control to bridge into Neo's consciousness through another human being's hardware.

I'm referring to the two times when Marco hums the song to himself whilst on a scam-mission, just before he's approached by Jimmy and their unsuspecting victim. The second time, he doesn't complete the bar and instead is interrupted by his cough, but if you listen closely you can hear he finishes the bar with "cough-beats" not in tune obviously but in the correct rhythm. I believe smoke and coughing are associated with death, and if you've seen the series (or read the opening line of this post) you'll know that Marco dies shortly after the coughing. However I've noticed with Vince Gilligan's work, there are so many hidden meanings behind certain details that would otherwise seem irrelevant to someone who isn't fully engaged in the series. I believe there may be some deeper foreshadowing here. Maybe "Smoke on the Water" is code for death on the horizon and possibly the song will come back in a later episode accompanied by a major turn of events? Edit: Just watched the episode in the end and I was intrigued to see how Saul mimics Marco's actions, just after he tells Mike, "It's not stopping me anymore" meaning "The matter of fairness, justice and 'doing the right thing'" will no longer stop him. It seems like this way-point in the plot is where Jimmy McGill, a lawyer you can trust becomes Saul Goodman, a "criminal" lawyer. Second Edit: After watching the series further, I found another couple references to the song. First when Saul is talking to his UNM film crew, he references 'Another Brick in the Wall' by Pink Floyd, the microphone man exclaims: "Deep Purple!" and then Saul says "This generation is doomed" And again, after he banks a few commercials with the guitar shop, he's laying on the ground in between shifts of community service, playing the guitar and after a discussion with Kim about operating for the following 6 weeks, Saul plays the classic riff...

I heard Jimmy playing Smoke on the water on the guitar in S05E06 There was an interesting thing there. Go back a couple of minutes to the scene where Mesa Verde is discussing a deal with Saul. After Saul has played his commercial for Kevin from Mesa Verde, they are discussing that it is made without mentioning Mesa Verde. It's just inferred, which is a way to get around the law. Transcription: - The problem we're facing is that none of the so-called victims said "Mesa Verde did this." - Everybody said "My bank" - They never used the words "Mesa Verde" - But it's our images, our logo... - Paige, it's all heavily inferred, but it's done in a way to keep us in the courts. We'll be there forever. Now listen when Saul is playing the song. The original is: |G Bb C G | Bb Db C | |G Bb C Bb | G | But what Saul is actually playing is the exact same rhytm, but all Bb is changed to A, so it looks like this: |G A C G | A Db C | |G A C A | G | Why? Well, it clearly looks like a back reference to the Mesa Verde case. It's not the same song, but everybody can clearly hear what song it's supposed to be.

In the movie The Prestige, Borden's big magic trick relies on ensuring that everyone thinks that Borden is just one person but in reality they are twins. To make this happen, they never appear in public at the same time. If they have to, then one appears as Borden while the other appears in disguise as his engineer. So far so good, but for some reason they also periodically switch their roles. Later when one of them falls in love and gets married, the other one also spends time with her as they switch back and forth. She suspects something is wrong and eventually gets depressed and commits suicide. My questions: Why couldn't one of them just stay as Borden and the other as the engineer permanently (or switch for stage performances or special occasions, if needed)? And even if they needed to periodically switch, still why involve the wife; it achieved no real purpose and potentially jeopardized the secret because she suspected something was off. If only the one that loved her had stayed with her, then everything would've been ok. I do realize that Borden was borderline crazy about his dedication to his art but still why do something that didn't add any value and almost blew his cover because his wife suspected it.

Why did Borden do that to his wife in The Prestige? Apparently, "he" did not trust the women in his life to keep the secret of the trick, and valued the trick above his relationship with these women. Everything that has already been said about the trick is correct, but the only reason the wife despaired over her husband's affair (and the assistant was forced into an illicit relationship) is because they were not let in on the trick. An in-universe reason for this duplicity (ahem) is that the trick was only flawless if it was completely lived at all times, and never, ever discussed. No matter how loyal the women, if they had known then one or both might have wanted more than was possible within the context of the trick, or might have slipped up somewhere, or might eventually have gotten angry and intentionally spilled the beans. This would have been disastrous, as Borden's entire livelihood apparently depended on the trick. Out-of-universe, it's easy to criticize such fanatical commitment: Why not live a little lower-on-the-hog and save up so he could retire sooner? Why not trust at least the wife? She was bound by law to be loyal, and probably had even more to lose than Borden if the secret ever came out. Even if she had to continue to live only half a life with her husband, that presumably would have been more tolerable than what she believed the state of affairs to be. Why not trust at least the assistant? Presumably she was in on the rest of the magician's secrets, and we know she's OK with secrets and illicit activity, at least when it comes to her one-true-love. Maybe she could even have been married off to the engineer and thereby made the secret more secure. Why not duck into a dressing room or water closet or phone booth à la Superman once in a while—at least when the wife was especially despondent? If there isn't a very persuasive answer to all of these, the out-of-universe answer pretty much has to be "plot". If Borden hadn't been so very committed, if Borden's wife hadn't killed herself in despair, the whole ending of the film would have been a lot less likely and compelling. Borden's actions at the end seem to be driven as much by guilt as by a desire for revenge, and you only get to the guilt if you first have the callous treatment of the wife and the girlfriend.

I was watching How to Get Away with Murder and, in the final episode, the character Annalise has a brief mental debate on what to wear to the trial. What was the first TV show or movie to do this?

Any performance of Shakespeare Shakespeare (and his contempories) used monologues extensively to show the audience the inner dialogue of his characters. Any broadcast of a performance of Shakespeare therefore qualifies. Virtually all silent movies In the absence of sound, silent movies naturally adopted the conventions of mime. Mime has very standard ways to show how a character is considering whether to do something. You see this many times in slapstick situations where the butt of the joke has their back turned, and the protagonist prepares to hit them with a stick/truncheon/whatever. Where the protagonist is definitely going to do it, they will gleefully wind up and prepare for the hit. And where the protagonist is unsure whether to do it or not, they will wind up, then turn away, then prepare again, then turn away again, and so on. The mental debate is clear, in spite of the lack of words.

Indiana Jones seemingly is able to ditch class at will and travel around the world for weeks at a time without risking losing his official job as a professor. How is he able to do this? It isn't like he has some TA that will handle everything for him otherwise he wouldn't be getting mobbed by students. Does he have some sort of standing agreement with his university that allows him to take unlimited time off?

Let's pretend you're the Dean of a Univeristy, and take the example from Last Crusade, where Indie seems to run off to find his father.. If you were a world famous Historian/Archaeologist, who recovered THE ARK OF THE COVENANT... Uncovered an ancient Thugee cult embroiled in a government conspiracy involving a child slavery ring (remember the Prime minister is at that dinner!) As well as recovering endless artifacts and returning them to their museums, and your star professor needs time off to perform another such excursion.. Are you going to say no? What will you gain from this, other than his resignation, and the loss of a major asset to the university?

What does the ending scene in the movie Basic Instinct actually mean? After the killer has been caught by the police, we see in the last scene a very suspenseful, cliffhanger sex scene. Can somebody explain the ending of that to me? Does it mean the real killer is not caught after all?

Is there any chance that both Catherine and Beth are the killers? They've been in love ever since they studied together and they are both very sick-minded, both of them plan all of the books and murders, let's say "just for fun", until everything gets out of control and Beth ends up getting killed. Or even better, Catherine being one step crazier (since she has been a murderer longer, starting with her own parents) wants a different ending to the book they had planned and twists the story to the point of killing her partner? To me these theories make a lot of sense since otherwise, how do you explain Detective Nick being involved in the whole plot from the very begining of the movie and even before that (being in a relationship with Beth). There is no way that everything that happens surrounding Beth is mere coincidence or planned perfectly accurately by Catherine alone. AND one more detail, even if all of the evidence was planted in Beth's apartment, there is one piece which doesn't fit: she says she supposedly arrived at the building because Gus had left her a message and when the police checks afterwards, they say there is no message in her machine; there is no chance that Catherine or anyone else could have erased that message, unless they had both been the murderers all along since the beginning.

The novel "A Clash Of Kings" has Robb Stark paired alongside Jeyne Westerling, and we also notice a large part of the House Westerling become an integral component of Robb Stark's court and council whereas nothing as such is seen in Game of Thrones with the inclusion of Lady Talisa. What are the reasons for such a change?

In an interview panel in Chicon7, George R. R. Martin explains the name change. At about the 55 minute mark in the podcast he starts talking about character changes between the books and the show, and ends up talking about the process of how Jeyne Westerling became Talisa Maegyr. Briefly, the show writers wanted to flesh out the relationship between Robb and Jeyne, which in the books happened mostly off panel due to the POV writing style of the books. So after several rewrites Jeyne became a noblewoman from Volantis who is also a nurse. At that point George realized that she was now a completely different character and that "Jeyne" wasn't a Volantine name, so he advised that they change her name also. Thus we have Talisa Magyer.

In Breaking Bad, Season 3 Episode 12 (Half Measures), Jesse is incensed with the rival drug dealers for using children (in particular Tomás) to do their killing and selling. Gus orders the dealers "No more children" and orders Jesse to make peace. Subsequently, Tomás is killed (presumably by the dealers), which triggers Jesse in to an attempt to kill the dealers. As Jesse is approaching the two dealers with his gun, Walt drives in from nowhere and runs over the dealers. One is killed instantly, the other seriously injured. Walt jumps from his car, grabs a gun and shoots the second dealer dead. Why does Walt do this? Is it simply because Jesse would likely have been killed during the showdown, or is it because he didn't want Jesse to become a murderer like he already was? If anything, I thought Walt may have been motivated to simply let Jesse die, due to Mike's "No half measures" speech.

Simplest explanation is Walt wanted to be the "guy". It was his ego made him kill the guys before Jessie to prove that it's his game, his turf. This show is phenomenal in the way it demonstrates human mind.

Why was the wormhole placed near Saturn in Interstellar? If 'they' (advanced future humans) placed the wormhole from the future, why didn't they place it near Earth or at-least near the planet Mars? They could have thought of saving fuel energy from Earth for a space-ship to travel this much farther. They (the people in earth from present) are in search of survival, they should have placed it somewhere near Earth for easier access. Right?

I'll try to make a first little attempt at parts of an out-of-universe answer why the writers might have chosen Saturn, even if it might be a bit far-fetched or speculative. Aesthetically as well as regarding many small references the movie is largely indebted to Stanley Kubrick's seminal work 2001: A Space Odyssey (well, which movie of this kind was not influenced by that, but there are some rather obvious references), where signs of extraterrestrial life emerge from near Jupiter. But in fact in the original novel by Arthur C. Clarke it was indeed Saturn (or one of its moons) and this was only changed to Jupiter in the movie because credible images of Saturn were simply not producible at that time. So this might very well be a reference to 2001, albeit a slightly distorted one. And in fact there seem to be many precedents of Jupiter and Saturn serving as gateways to new experiences in science-fiction works, though it's unclear if that all goes back just to 2001 or to some earlier precedent, or maybe a more general affinity of human culture to those planets (or if all the other planets are equally represented). But I guess being such major players in our solar system and way farther away than Mars (which is largely demystified nowadays, the times of Mars invasions are over) makes them a bit more predestined to serve as such gateways. Then there are other small hints that Saturn was a fitting choice, even if they're way more far-fetched. First of all Saturn is the Roman god of agriculture, which could on the one hand represent the largely unprogressing society of farmers humanity has accomodated itself to. When then factoring in the meaning of the Saturn Rockets as the facilitators of the Apollo missions and thus a signpost of human space exploration, it could on the other hand represent the pioneering attitude with which Cooper, the compulsory farmer and former space explorer, grasps for new directions in space (and through him ultimately humanity). But I guess culture is littered with other Saturn references and one might find fitting analogies of varying degrees. In addition to this, Saturn might as well have served as a visual counterpart to Gargantua. Showing Saturn with its commonly known and characteristic rings could have served as a visual clue for the audience to understand that it is the black hole's accretion disc, a rougly similar ring of stuff (albeit faster and hotter), that gives this black hole its at first rather unexpected appearance. Gargantua is basically the "weirder" mirror image of Saturn. Those are really just some first thoughts and this whole matter deserves way more investigation. I also admit that I don't currently have an actual in-universe answer for "them" to place the wormhole at Saturn instead of a nearer location. But it seems irrelevant anyway, given that any other planet might not carry the same aesthetic significance for the story as Saturn does and that placing it directly in earth's atmosphere and the atmosphere of Edmunds' planet (as suggested in a comment) would result in an entirely different story lacking any kind of interstellar travel, time dilation and time-defying communication (apart from other possible dangers a wormhole right in the atmosphere might pose). But maybe the safety argument still applies to a larger scale. After all this thing has sat there for 48 years already and it is hard to anticipate what stuff may come through it or in which way it might have some extraordinary gravitational influence, so better keep it at a safe distance.

In season 7 episode 11 of The Walking Dead Dwight reads a letter from his wife that implies he forgets things, perhaps even implying he has alzheimer's Is that a correct interpretation? Is there confirmation of that? I haven't seen any signs of this in previous episodes.

I didn't think it was implying anything that serious. Just that Dwight is forgetful, kind of like he would forget their anniversary or what the weather was like on their first date, or the fact they would meet back at the house with beer & pretzels. A thing that could be laid at the door of a lot of men without them requiring a dementia. Dwight hasn't shown any signs of Alzheimer's or any other kind of dementia through the series. Memory loss that affects day-to-day function. Difficulty performing familiar tasks. Confusion about time and place. Problems with language. Problems with abstract thinking. Poor or decreased judgment. Problems misplacing things. Changes in Personality and Behaviour Loss of initiative. - Alzheimer's Australia You could argue that his personality has changed, especially with Sherry's letter saying he has changed and that he has killed a man. However this is more likely to be due to the apocalyptic world he now lives in and the brutal regime within the Saviours. He still shows initiative, in the story he made up about Sherry being killed by Walkers, and in framing the Dr for Darryls escape. He was able to think to go back to the house, and he checked the note about feeding the goldfish with that left under Darryls door. Any memory loss he does have doesn't stop his day to day functions, he can still fire a gun, ride a motorcycle. Dwight is even able to remember the beer and pretzels, which Sherry seemed to imply he wouldn't be able to do. It is probably more likely that Sherry thinks his memory is worse than it is, again something a number of spouses may think about husbands in general.

I first saw this when I read a Cracked article about insane fan theories that make sense. I first thought of the same thing long before I read that though because it makes sense. James Bond has had 23 movies since 1962 and has been played by 6 different actors (7 if you include David Niven, which everyone should) and yet the story of James Bond is supposed to be of only one man. It makes so much more sense for James Bond to be a name assumed when an agent becomes 007 it makes them an alias. Especially with the time frame involved and the adventures placed out of order. Is there any reason given for why there is only one James Bond rather than embracing this idea of it being a code name? Also who controls this aspect of the franchise?

There's no concrete answers to why it's never acknowledged, but as Johnny Bones points outs, most of the films are based on books (Film to the left, book to the right): Dr. No (1962) — Dr. No (1958, Fleming) From Russia with Love (1963) — From Russia, with Love (1957, Fleming) Goldfinger (1964) — Goldfinger (1959, Fleming) Thunderball (1965) — Thunderball (1961, Fleming) You Only Live Twice (1967) — You Only Live Twice (1964, Fleming) On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) — On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1963, Fleming) Diamonds Are Forever (1971) — Diamonds Are Forever (1956, Fleming) Live and Let Die (1973) — Live and Let Die (1954, Fleming) The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) — The Man with the Golden Gun (1965, Fleming) The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) — The Spy Who Loved Me (1962, Fleming) Moonraker (1979) — Moonraker (1955, Fleming) For Your Eyes Only (1981) — For Your Eyes Only (1960, Fleming)* Octopussy (1983) — Octopussy and The Living Daylights (1966, Fleming)* A View to a Kill (1985) — For Your Eyes Only (1960, Fleming)* The Living Daylights (1987) — Octopussy and The Living Daylights (1966, Fleming)* Licence to Kill (1989) — N/A GoldenEye (1995) — N/A Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) — N/A The World Is Not Enough (1999) — N/A Die Another Day (2002) — N/A Casino Royale (2006) — Casino Royale (1953, Fleming) Quantum of Solace (2008) — N/A - Name is taken from a short story with no relation to the plot. Skyfall (2012) — N/A * Short stories or taken from a collection of short stories Adapted from Wikipedia's List of James Bond Novels and List of James Bond Films Ignoring real-world time constraints, there's very little information given in the novels or the movies indicating the passage of time. The only exception I can think of is Die Another Day, in which James Bond spends 14 months as a prisoner of the North Koreans: Other than this, there's no reason the rest of the missions couldn't take place one after another, with maybe enough time for wounds to heal (or be rescued from the middle of the sea, as happens a few times). It's also possible that these 14 months don't matter, Die Another Day is an appropriate end to the series, and the fact that Casino Royale opens with James Bond being given his "007 Status", which indicates it's either a prequel, reboot, or different person. The only thing that goes against the different person hypothesis is the fact that Bond has the Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger in Skyfall, and knows how to use the ejector seat. There are some non-canon sources which offer interesting perspectives, for example the hilarious O.K. Connery starring Neil Connery as Dr. Neil Connery, a cosmetic surgeon, hypnotist, and brother of a famous secret agent, which is obviously supposed to be James Bond, but couldn't be said for copyright reasons. While it's just a silly knock-off movie, the fact that he's called Neil Connery instead of Neil Bond despite being his brother seems to indicate that James Bond is a code name, and he's called James Connery (or Sean Connery perhaps). Also who controls this aspect of the franchise? As you can see, the majority of them are wirtten by Ian Fleming, however the films have a lot of writers and producers in common, but those with the biggest claim to "canon" at this point, I believe, are: Neal Purvis and Robert Wade The World Is Not Enough (Story by) Die Another Day (Written by) Casino Royale (2006) (Screenplay by with Paul Haggis) Quantum of Solace (2008) (Written by with Paul Haggis) Skyfall (2012) (Screenplay by with John Logan) Barbara Broccoli, daughter of Albert R. Broccoli who produced 17 Bond movies Octopussy (Assistant director) A View to a Kill (Assistant director) The Living Daylights (Associate producer) Licence to Kill (Associate producer) GoldenEye (Producer) Tomorrow Never Dies (Producer) The World Is Not Enough (Producer) Die Another Day (Producer) Casino Royale (Producer) Quantum of Solace (Producer) Skyfall (Producer) These three are the most experienced and important people I can find who are still working on James Bond and I should imagine they're the closest thing you could find to an authority on James Bond at this point.

In Man of Steel; How is it that no one seems to know of Lara's Pregnancy? Did Jor El hide her away for the entire term of her pregnancy? Why was it considered Heresy?

We're not really shown her carrying Clark to term, just him in the ship. We can make assumptions though. Jor-El was a rather smart cookie, so he probably figured out a way to hide her away or figured out something to hide her belly (assuming they get pregnant like humans). Also, from what it sounds Kryptonians weren't used to women walking around pregnant, so many of them probably wouldn't have known.

It is well known that the majority of Tarantino movies are set in the same fictional Universe. I just wonder what are, if any, the cross-references that make "The Hateful Eight" part of the same puzzle. In one of the answers to this question - "How many Tarantino films are set in the same universe?" - it is mentioned that "The Hateful Eight" is indeed the part of that universe. But I guess it would be nice to have some clarification on this issue.

At some point, Bob smokes a Manzana Roja (Red Apple in Spanish) cigarette, and Minnie has a cigarette with Red Apple tobacco. This Fictional brand has appeared before in other Tarantino films, although I think this is the first time it's suggested to have a foothold in the Spanish-speaking market.

In Game of Thrones S08E04 we see a face-off between Cersei and Dany. She could have killed Dany during the first meet before the great war also, but possibly didn't because she was terrified of her dragons. But now as we know she has a weapon to kill the dragons and the backing of the people of the King's Landing, why didn't she kill them all?

I'm not sure what the official word for it is, but rulers will not fight when they meet to negotiate terms of surrender or anything of the sort, and it seems that it's one of the rare things that Cersei respects in terms of tradition. We saw the same meeting happen when Jon Snow met with Ramsay Snow, earlier when Stannis met with Renly. Then it happens when Jon asks for Lannister support against the Night King. In any one of those meetings, one could have attacked the other, but they didn't. It just happens to be one of those traditions where no one attacks to negotiate or demand surrender.

Yesterday, my buddies and I were watching the movie UP, and in the scene where Mr. Frederickson hits the worker for moving his mailbox, the worker moves his hand to reveal blood on his head. One of my friends then commented saying "I think this is the first Disney movie to have blood.", but I waved him off, sure there was another one older than that that has featured blood. Is there? Or have I gone crazy?

The earliest Disney animated movie I can find is Sleeping Beauty, from 1959, which shows the Dragon being slain by a sword, showing some blood. I found this picture, I see no reason why this picture is not genuine... In live action movies, in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea (1954), Captain Nemo (played by James Mason) is shot whilst boarding the Nautilus. He is seen climbing stairs, and there is a big patch of blood on his jacket. Youtube hosted copy of the scene

In the movie Terminator 2, in the scene in the steel mill, the T-1000 machine tortures Sarah Connor to make her call her son John. Watching the movie we learn that T-1000 can reproduce human voices of the people that he touches, so why does he torture Sarah and try to force her to call John? Why doesn't he call John directly?

The T-1000 had past experience of trying to imitate Janelle (John's foster parent). It tried to pretend it was her when John rang to warn them. But it took the wrong tone with John & he knew something was off. So that attempt failed, and it got to confirm that when it checked the dog's name. That, added to the damage it had sustained, probably convinced it that imitating a woman that was even closer to John would be a failure. Hence, next strategy, torture compliance out of Sarah (which ended just as poorly, in the short time it had access to her).

In Capricorn One, the NASA mission control center maintains fluent communication with the spacecraft crew, which is especially obvious in the scene where the astronauts talk with their wives, even though the spacecraft was so far this would be impossible. I would consider this just another logical glitch in the movie (which is full of them, IMHO), but the fact the signal from the spacecraft takes 21 minutes to reach Earth is repeatedly stressed in the movie just prior to these scenes. So I wonder, did I miss something? Is there any explanation, or is it really just an error?

The comment prior to the conversation with the astronauts´ wives (in the control center) clearly states that Capricorn 1 is just close enough to Earth to allow the fluent conversation. Only at the most distant point of the mission the conversation gaps reach 21 minutes. Thus, there seems to be no blooper nor plothole. (I am much more worried about the Apollo mission technology used for a journey of at least a year. Could three astronauts just sit in the command module most of the time? I guess even the strongest personalities would have gone mad. There might have been a strong extended/additional stage of a modified Saturn rocket for the outward and return journey. If this stage was equipped with extra rooms, stores etc. it would appear more realistic than what we see in the movie.)

I was watching Everest (2015) and I can't help but wonder if Rob and many others died because of Doug's adamance to reach the top. If Rob hadn't agreed with Doug, they would've been heading down. They wasted time going up and then coming down. Rob was the most experienced of them and maybe his presence with the team could have saved a few more lives? Was it because of Doug's adamance that people died?

I have watched and read everything I have could on this disaster, and have been obsessed with it. It is an amazing and tragic story, both for all the unfortunate deaths, but the amazing stories of survival, in particular Beck Weathers. That was one tough and resilient dude. As far as "Doug's fault" - if anything that decision is Rob's fault. It is well known that Rob had his pride/ego on the line because it was Doug's 2nd year. Rob is the experienced leader and chose to take on a 2nd time a man who basically wasn't capable of summitting Everest. First, Doug wasn't even in good shape. Second they were way past the 2pm turnaround time. Rob made a very bad call because of business and pride reason's. Blaming Doug is ridiculous when you take into account, not only his lack of experience climbing let alone with 8000ers...but also his current state at the time, hypoxic. I believe that if Rob Hall was more of a jerk, people would have been more critical of his decision to get Doug to the summit PAST the turnaround time of 2pm. But because he was a nice and caring guy, people tend to overlook that. Human nature just like Doctor's who get sued for malpratice are the jerks, even if they make less mistakes than the nice one's. I also believe this is why Krakaeur is hard on Anatoli Bourkreev...he was a brash-type and aruguably the best mountaineer of the bunch as one of Scott's guides. Because of Rob Hall's bad decision as the expedition leader, both he and Doug died. Yes other event's are tied to this, but given Doug Hansens's state and extra energy required to get to the summit, and the time they lost before the storm hit, they may have well lived, or Rob may have because they would have made it further than the Hillary step before Doug became incapacitated and could no longer move. Closer to the oxygen bottles as well, on the South Col. Truth is it's all tragic and none of us were there, but like an airplane crash, it is usually a chain of events, though it appears to mean in the moment decision's like Rob's to not argue with Doug to continue. Perhaps it wasn't in Rob's capacity as he was too "nice", but nice doesn't save lives unfortunately in this case.

In the 1983 film Scarface, Tony Montana is looking up at an advertisement on a blimp that reads "The World is yours...Pan American" Was the phrase "The world is yours" an actual Pan American advertisement or did filmmakers introduce this phrase independently?

In the 1932 movie, the sign with "The World Is Yours" is the one that inspired Tony Camonte. It's under the same sign that he dies (screenshot below), when shot by the police. You can see Tony's death at 1:32:51 under the sign. The 1983 zeppelin/statue is probably a tribute to the Howard Hughes 1932 movie. There's an ad from PanAm (circa 1950) (from @Tetsujin), so it can't be the inspiration for the 1932 movie. Why not the other way around though?[1] [1] TWA was PanAm main competitor for years. Howard Hughes took control over TWA starting in 1937. TWA's first commercial flight to Europe was set in 1946 (New York to Paris route on February 5, 1946). Through the 50's et 60's TWA has opened many lines to Europe and Asia. Juan Trippe (portrayed by Alec Baldwin in the movie "Aviator") tried and have HH's company (and others) forbidden to fly to many places as he wanted a monopoly. "Although Pan Am continued to use its political influence to lobby for protection of its position as America's primary international airline, it encountered increasing competition." PanAm post-war expansion That would be the heck of a "joke" (? for lack of a better word) if someone at PanAm, having seen the 1932 movie, thought of using the motto as an ad (and personal warning to HH): like Tony Camonte, you'll try to reach the skies looking at our planes and inspired by our ads, but, like Camonte, at the end, you'll die under our sign.

In Men in Black 3, Agent J (Will Smith) goes to see Jeffrey Price in the electronics store to obtain the time-travel device built by Price's father that J can then use to travel back to 1969 to avert K's murder. However, in an earlier scene in the film, we see Boris the Animal (Jermaine Clement) visit Jeffrey Price in the same store to obtain the device in order to go back to commit the murder. I understand that time-travel films open up a huge kettle of worms when it comes to inconsistencies and plot-holes, but this seems to be a glaring error. As it is shown that the device stays with the user when they time-jump, are we to assume that there is more than one device (which does not seem to be the case when we are shown the holding container), or is this just a script error?

I have another explanation (sorry, English is not my mother tongue). I prefer this one, unfortunately it leads to a stronger inconsistency of the scenario: One should notice that spacetime where Boris meets Jeffrey Price is different from spacetime where J meets Jeffrey. This happens not only a few days after! Actually universe split in two versions in 1969, exaclty when 2012-Boris (old Boris-1) arrived in 1969. In the first version, in 1969, K blasts Boris-1' arm and sends him to prison in 1969, and 40 years later, Boris-1 escapes from moon, and finally visits Jeffrey. But in the second version, in 1969, 2012's old Boris-1 kills K before installing the arcnet, so that the young Boris keeps his arms and doesn' go to prison: Boris-2 appears! Consequently, 40 years later, old Boris-2 doesn't need to visit Jeffrey since K is already dead 40 years ago! (Moreover absence of arcnet enables a boglodites' invasion). Actually, the old Boris-1 vanished in 1969 in this second spacetime just after having killed K: in the 2nd spacetime, there is NO Boris without arm who spent years in jail! For a given spacetime, and given age, there is only one Boris (although there may be at the same time two different versions of the same character at DIFFERENT ages, which happens in the movie.) The good point is that J transited in 2012 from 1st version to 2nd, due to his presence in 1969 (according to Jeffrey). This gives birth to a 3rd timespace version, the one depicted in the second part of the movie. To sum up, in the 2nd version, Jeffrey should have not met Boris, but only J! Thus no problem if there in only one time device! Nevertheless, there is a big script error. Jeffrey-2 should have never met Boris in 2nd spacetime. Anyway, that inconsistency was necessary for the scenario (By the way, maybe you know that the storyline writing was a huge pain in the ass _ Griffin would have said ^^) Boris-1 loses his arm in 1969, lives 40 years in prison, jumps in 1969, kills K and vanishes. Young Boris-1 splits to Boris-2 at the time he keeps his arm (thanks to Boris-1), he doesn't go to prison, and coordinates boglodites' invasion in 2012, as one can watch before J travels to time. Young Boris-1 also splits to Boris-3 (due to J's intervention upon Boris-1s'one), and is killed by K a few minutes after killing J's father, instead being stopped as B-1 was. That's not all! Just before vanished, due to J's intervention too, old Boris-1 splits to Boris-4. He dies incinerated by the rocket. Boris-1 and Boris-4 are not the same! Old B-1 killed young K, not B-4 (dont' forget K is alive at the end).

This is the End (2013) features scenes where Seth Rogen smokes weed. It's no secret that Seth Rogen likes to smoke weed, and from this link, it would seem they often did it off camera. On camera; is he really smoking weed, or is it a prop the production team gave him? I guess you would have to look at what the law says during that time (2013). I can only assume at the time it was illegal and it was, in fact, a prop.

The film was shot entirely in New Orleans, Louisiana, where recreational use wasn't decriminalized until 2015. Therefore, considering it was a major Hollywood production, it's logical to believe that recreational drug use was not allowed during filming. I'm sure that interview was overblown, as it was part of the press junket for the movie. Actors have been known to lie quite frequently during these marketing-based interviews. Let's face it; if you're in a movie where the target audience is the drug culture, you're not going to say, "Oh, we never smoked the stuff once". It's part of the build-up; creating the legend. Rogen, who is from Canada, has also been quoted as saying he doesn't smoke much on US soil because law enforcement is so strict about it.

There is a quite famous scene in the original movie where Robocop comes up to a guy, grabs barrel of his automatic gun and bends it downwards, while the guy continues holding the gun in shock. Isn't that completely impossible and the gun would've got torn out of his hands with the force needed to bend a steel barrel?

He could bend the barrel. But even so, if he grabbed the barrel and tried to hunch it down, the weapon would pivot barrel down unless the assailant had a grip like a vice. Robocop had no leverage what so ever to bend the barrel. steel used in a simple 9mm barrel has a elastic modulus of 190-200 gigapascals, You could bend it but you need leverage.

Scarface's director regretted killing Tony Montana. He didn't know that the movie would have such success; he could have used the character to create a sequel. Is it possible to revive someone who died in a movie in order to create a sequel? Did someone do that?

Ramirez, played by Sean Connery, dies in Highlander, and returns to life, with no explanation whatever, in Highlander II. Both films were directed by Russell Mulcahy.

I've seen many of times in Game of Thrones, that barely anyone trusts Littlefinger. In "Beyond the Wall" (Game of Thrones, S07E06), in a conversation with Sansa, Brienne said that she can't leave Sansa alone with Littlefinger. He has saved Jon Snow in the Battle of the Bastards, he just loved Catelyn Stark, and perhaps now Sansa. So, why he is always called an untrustworthy person by everyone?

I think Littlefinger is very close to being one of the evilest characters in the show, even more than Joffrey or Cersei. In his own words, he says: Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is. All he sees is the ladder and whom he can use as a rung to climb a little higher. He uses everyone and doesn't care who he destroys in the process. He won't even let love, gods or duty get in the way. He is obsessed with Sansa as a chance to relive his lost love, Catelyn, but was still willing to sacrifice her to the Boltons to get up another rung. Another quote reveals even more about him and how he climbs that ladder: Fight every battle everywhere, always, in your mind. Everyone is your enemy, everyone is your friend. Every possible series of events are happening all at once. Live that way and nothing will surprise you. Everything that happens will be something that you've seen before. He won't allow himself to fail because it is very likely he will be broken by it. So he plans for every eventuality. It is also why he gets a leg up on Arya. From the moment he saw Arya he was trying to figure out how to use her. She may be the shape-changing assassin but he could write a Sun Tzu-level book on the art of cunning and paranoia. Everyone sees how he acts and the way he turns situations to his advantage at someone else's misfortune. We, the audience, get to connect more dots than anyone else in the show. But, characters only have to see how he tries to get some advantage out of them to be wary of him. Plus Brienne probably sees the way Littlefinger looks at her.

In Seinfeld's episode The Pie, Audrey, Jerry's girlfriend refuses to eat or even taste the apple pie he was offering her. This happened when they were eating at Monk's Cafe. She seemed very frightened while denying. Later on she admits that she has eaten the apple pie many times which Poppie, her father, makes at his restaurant. Kramer later tells Jerry that he saw Audrey eating apple pie at Monk's itself. Jerry himself was going crazy over not knowing the reason of why she didn't eat the pie when he had offered it to her. The episode never explains it either. Why didn't she eat the apple pie for the first time? Did you ever come across any related comment from the writers in their interview/DVD commentary? (I've already read few related threads/articles: Reddit, AV Club. Nothing convincing there.)

The reason is because he began eating it first and she doesn't share food and is grossed out by that. The transcript makes it clearer by stating "Jerry starts eating" before he asks her to share and she is "disgusted". Her going back to Monk's and eating the pie later (something Jerry wouldn't have done with Poppie's Restaurant) shows that Jerry was the reason. I disagree with the other answer that "Jerry will never get that because he's incapable of putting himself in someone else's shoes", the whole reason he's interested is because he's putting himself in her shoes trying to understand. It's about Jerry letting criticisms of people's behavior overshadow a relationship. Also, Jerry's ego would likely not have him ever consider himself as the gross thing. I also disagree that the show could've only provided "mundane" answers, as that seems a very uncreative thought to have, even more ridiculous considering the episode shows funny answers. There's always ways to make things funny. It would've been good to have her tell Jerry it was because of him, just to see him immediately move on to nitpicking that and still be in the same situation.

After every reset in Edge of Tomorrow, Cage "wakes up" at Heathrow and everything is as it is (all the dead are alive like before). In the end Cage destroys the Omega's core, and its floating blood once again give him the power to reset time. He "wakes up" a day before en route to his first meeting (and why not at Heathrow like everytime?). But how come the Omega is not alive again? In other words, why are the events at the Louvre Pyramid not reset?

I took that it existed along the entire line of the temporal loop, which is why it was able to learn tactics, reset and still keep the memories. If so then killing it anywhere along the loop kills it across the entire thing, so when Criuse returns to his start point it's dead

In Black Panther, during the ritual they have to strip-away T'Challa's power before he can compete with M'Baku for the throne. But, why does he have the power in the first place? Didn't he have to earn it or did he just inherit it from his father? Even during Civil War, he had the power but it seems his coronation happens after it, so why did he have that power before even becoming the king? Did this also happen in comics in the same way or only in the movie?

While the king is often the black panther, and the black panther is often the king, we know from Avenger's: Civil War that T'Challa was black panther while his father was the king. If his father had the advantage of the vibranium flowers he likely wouldn't have died from that attack, therefore we can conclude that he, for an unknown as yet reason, chose to remove his powers, and chose his son to gain them prior to that movie. For any of a variety of reasons a king might choose another to become Wakanda's Black Panther, there is no hard and fast requirement in the MCU universe (yet) that means the king and black panther are always one and the same. While in the Black Panther movie it appears that it's expected, the ceremony to fight for leadership only ever removes the power and a separate ceremony gives it - therefore it's possible for a king to choose to refuse the power and role. Outside the MCU there are other Back Panthers who weren't kings, as well as two Black Panthers at once, but the MCU hasn't fleshed out as much of the Black Panther mythos.

Follow-up question to Why did the Night King attack the furthest target first? In "Beyond the Wall" (Game of Thrones, S07E06), the Night King kills the dragon Viserion with a spear. Why is he moving so slowly when he could have easily eliminated all targets? Also, in previous episodes, we saw him strolling around, e.g. when attacking Bran's hideout. Is there any in-universe explanation why he is moving slowly, or is he just ... too cool to hurry? Scope: I'm not asking about this specific episode but in general. We have seen him act slowly in previous episodes.

It seems all Walkers are moving slowly until they start fighting. Which means they can move fast, they just don't choose to. I think there are two main reasons. First is much more important and it is about psychological warfare. Going slowly like they do shows confidence and breaks enemy in addition to having the great army. Imagine they run forward yelling "Charge!". You would still be scared of bigger enemy since you can't expect to survive, but there is nothing menacing or unthinkable in it. Just normal military behavior. This slow moving shows that no matter what you do and how good and fearless you fight, they just don't care. You can't change anything and that will scare you even if you don't think about it. They showed this many times, most notably in raising thousands of dead in Hardhome, as LeonX already answered. But normal military strategy might be not to raise them while enemy is watching in order to hide your numbers. However they always choose showing off and going slowly. We don't know what exactly is their motive, but they obviously take their time. Plus when dragons appeared and destroyed wights by the thousands, do you see them panic or getting nervous? No. They are like "Oh, here are some dragons. Let's use spears". And it is effective. Actually the only time you saw any falling out of their coolness is in Hardhome when Jon successfully blocked Walker's weapon with Longclaw. What I wonder is do they really want to kill every human and why do they use psychilogical warfare if they are so invincible... More like they want to scare everyone, but I'm not sure is it for purpose of damaging morale or something else is in play. Oh yes, and second reason for being slow is much less important: it looks more awesome for the show :D Actually, I hate these new wights introduced in season 4 or 5. They are now just like out-of-the-mill zombies you saw in all these modern zombie movies and I think it sucks. Like totally sucks. They move fast and make those gnarling noises, they just need to add "Braaaiiiiin" and that's it, no difference. I understand it is easier for larger audiences to watch since that is something everyone is used to, but I think it lowered the effect of the show. Remember the first wight in Castle Black or attack on the Fist of the First Man, when they leave Sam and "charge" at the hill? All the wights were incredibly slow, Walkers actually had normal speed. And that's how it is in the books btw. Tens of thousands of wights, just approaching as slow as possible, without a sound. At first it might seem weak, but then no matter how many you kill and no matter what defence you put up, there is no hope. They just keep coming. And coming. And you are faster, you can slash them few times and then you see it made no difference. They still attack and are strong as hell. Compared to that, these "arrgh, khkhkhhhh, gnaaaarl" zomie-wights are just boring. If they at least used those from the beginning of the show. Instead they showed us the creepy ones and then switched to usual ones. Meh.

Alright, so in Infinity War, when Thanos obtains the reality stone, it is evident that he is able to shape reality in whichever way he wants. This is shown when Gamora is able to kill his duplicate, and with ease, he is able to bend reality to bring himself back and make Knowhere burn. My question, then, is why did he fight the avengers during the Wakanda fight scene instead of, say, turn them all to stone like he did to Drax? Also, if the reality stone is able to shape reality, wouldn't that give him any powers he wants, rendering he other stone useless?

Both good answers from Anu & eztephen - but just to elaborate on the writers intentions, they answered this very question in the audio commentary for Infinity War, stating that they saw the reality stone as an impermanent solution when used , the extent of it's power being mainly illusory as opposed to permanently changing the nature of reality in any given situation. They also note that Thanos avoids murdering other characters unless absolutely necessary and in the specific case regarding the Knowhere encounter, one of his aims is to try and re-establish a connection with Gomora. As such, he knows that killing Quill, Drax or Mantis would only alienate her further, which is why he chooses to dispatch them using the reality stone, the effect of which is neutralised as soon as he escapes with Gomora via the tesseract powered wormhole (as Drax and Mantis are instantly able to pull themselves back together.

In the 2012 movie Dredd, rookie Anderson who is a psychic is put on an assessment mission with Dredd. At the very end of the movie, Dredd states that her assessment is over and she hands her badge over looking quite defeated as if she understands she failed. When asked by the Chief Judge if Anderson passes, Dredd says she passes. The question I have is that if Anderson is psychic and can obviously read Dredd's mind, did she actually pass? Did Dredd lie to the Chief Judge?

Dredd did pass her, it was up to Anderson after that. At the very ending scene you see Anderson carrying a helmet and a new gun implying she learned from Dredd and decided to become a Judge, plus in the comics she was the lead Judge is the pyi division.

In a lot of trailers these days, you get to see a green background screen with MPAA rating information. I understand if a movie is rated PG-13 or R or All Audiences, but what I don't understand is "For Appropriate Audience." What audience is appropriate for this trailer? That doesn't provide a hint as to what type of audience is appropriate for this movie. It seems arbitrarily lazy to not specify the audience category. Maybe they don't want to scare people away from seeing the movie if they actually say it is rated "R." I could be wrong, but again, I am not a native English speaker, so it might be a cultural thing.

I believe that the "Appropriate Audience" they are talking about is the audience for the feature that will start after the trailers. For example, someone has decided that viewers of the feature are an appropriate audience to see this version of the trailer being shown before the feature. I agree the language is quite confusing.

Kattappa is royal guard and serves to Mahismati's king as his ancestors has taken vows to serve the kingdom generation after generations. It is shown in movie that Kattappa continue to serve Bhallala Deva who is keeping previous queen Devasena. There is a dialogue where Bhallala says I know it despises you to serve me.We know that Bhallala is a usurper who gained the throne instead of Baahubali and don't care much for the kingdom or people. Does it means he is bound to serve whoever sits on Throne or in other words is kind of Mahishmati. Let's assume some other king like King of kalakeyas (who attacked the kingdom and lost the war), conquores the Mahismati and become king, then Kattappa will serve him loyally given that Kalakey don't kill him.

In the conversation between Kattappa and the middle eastern king, the king offers to buy Kattappa his freedom to which Kattappa refuses saying that no money in the world could buy his freedom. His fore fathers have vowed to protect the kingdom of Mahishmati and he would die serving the king as a slave to keep his promise. Well this is a poor attempt at translation from hindi to english by me of the entire dialogue, but here is the link to the full movie in Hindi where you can see the discussion somewhere around 26 mins in to the movie. Baahubali full movie Thus I believe that Kattappa would serve the king no matter who he is. Even if it is Kalekey

In Fury, we see Brad Pitt wielding a German manufactured Stg-44 assault rifle-the first ever. My understanding was that they were only issued to some Waffen SS and mostly to fighters on the Eastern Front. In an otherwise realistic depiction of WWII, is it reasonable to assume that he could actually have acquired such a weapon, or was it just cool to have him mowing down Nazis with an AK look-alike?

One of these weapons made the news a few years back it was surmised it had been captured after killing the bloke holding it. Handed in for a weapons scheme. The article explains a similar theory to yours. Here is a purported picture of an allied solider with one. There is short piece titled Gun News that speaks of these weapons being captured by Americans. Although rare it seems a not impossible scenario for o'l Brad to find one whilst roaming about knocking off Hitler's Army .

Some characters of the Dark tv series say that The beginning is the end, and the end is the beginning. What does it mean? Is the quote related to the child of Jonas and Martha (because Adam and Eve think the child is the origin) or is it related to the creation of time machine by Old Tannhaus? Or does it mean that there is no beginning and no end, and the quote applies to almost everyone in Winden e.g. Elisabeth and Charlotte Doppler. > Noah, in a voice-over, says the beginning is the end and the end is the beginning. He couldn't tell Charlotte who her mother was.

It is a loosely based quote from T.S.Eliot,“What we call the beginning is often the end. And to make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from.” It is great stuff if you concentrate on what he's trying to say.

Having seen the incredible statistics on the frequency of the use of the word "fuck" in movies in this question: What is the sweariest movie ever?, I thought it might also be worth recording the first use of the word. So what was the first movie to use the word "fuck" audibly?

First word fuck appeared in movies in 1963. see video proof As you can see in the video, first F word film is Vapors (1963).

In the movie Edge of Tomorrow , is it possible to kill the omega? Because it seems to me that every time it is killed it will reset the time. At the end Cage killed the omega but still he was teleported back in time, even further. So, how to kill the omega or is it just a neverending cycle? If I am having wrong perception about the movie and there is any other explanation please enlighten me.

There is a point in the movie where Emily Blunt's character, Rita, speculates that Humans may be the first species to be able to effectively fight back against this alien, because of how we can absorb the time traveling ability when exposed to their blood. Both Rita and Cage are, at different points in time, exposed to the blood of an alpha, and gain the ability to reset time by one day. Both later lose this ability due to a blood transfusion. Near the end of the movie, Cage manages to kill the Omega, but in doing so, receives mortal wounds himself. As his dying body floats in the water, it is exposed to the blood of the Omega. The Omega, being more powerful than an alpha, it's blood gives Cage greater power to reset time, and so when his body dies, it resets time several days back, to the point before Cage meets General Brigham. Now the viewer is never shown how or why, but somehow the Omega's death in the future ripples back in time, killing it in the new present. Because the aliens have some kind of group consciousness, the death of the Omega causes the deaths of all the aliens. Earth is saved and only Cage knows why. Although if he explained it to Rita, she would understand and believe him because of her previous experience with the alpha and knowledge of the Omega.

I don't understand, because even though Mike hasn't gone to Harvard, it is expressed that Jessica can waive the rule as she did with Rachel going to Columbia.

I think it matters more that he does not have a formal law degree than not going to Harvard. He cannot practice law without a formal law degree and that can get him into deep trouble.

In Running Scared (2005), The Scene where Detective Rydell show his badge to Anzor, then this effect is used on his badge: What is this shining look like effect called?

It doesn't come across well in your image but this is a stroboscopic effect. Wikipedia It's not clear why it's being used here other than to heighten the tension of seeing the badge on Anzor although it might be a play on "flashing a badge".

In the film Fight Club, What I understood so far is that The Narrator thinks Marla's life in danger because Tyler wants to kill her. In the scene where The Narrator realizes he's also Tyler and they have a discussion, Tyler says "Now you see our dilemma, she know too much.". And I get that Tyler didn't want The Narrator to realize they were the same person (and so not to talk about Tyler to Marla) because The Narrator didn't have the balls to do on his own what Tyler did. But how is Marla compromising any plans at that point of the movie ? The Narrator already understood he's Tyler so what is there that Marla could ruin ?

Even though Tyler is part of the Narrator, that part (which we call Tyler) has an agenda, which we see represented as Tyler's proactive "teaching" of the Narrator. You've touched on this in your question: Tyler didn't want The Narrator to realize they were the same person because The Narrator didn't have the balls to do on his own what Tyler did. If Tyler didn't want the Narrator to be aware of the split personalities, why on Earth would he trust Marla with that same knowledge, which gives her the power to ruin Tyler's agenda? Note: your question seems to imply that the Narrator's realization (about Tyler) is the biggest problem for Tyler. It is not. It is a problem, but there is a threat of something much more dangerous to Tyler: a psychiatric hospital and anti-psychotic meds. The Narrator's knowledge about Tyler is only an obstacle (to Tyler's teachings), but the hospital and meds will drive Tyler out completely. Marla being aware of Tyler being the Narrator (or vice versa, I guess) means that she's in a unique position. The guys in the club generally think of the Narrator as a guy with some serious balls (= Tyler), but they don't realize that it's a matter of split personalities. As such, Marla is the only one who can really pull the emergency brake, call in a psychiatrist, and put an end to Tyler's agenda. This is why she's a threat to Tyler. And there's a great duality here, because before the Narrator realizes he is Tyler, he interprets Tyler's words differently. Pre-realization, he can interpret Tyler's words as Marla being dangerous because she knows too much about the fight club and its dealings. Post-realization, we now know that Tyler thinks of Marla as a threat, because she can put a stop to the psychological manifestation that is Tyler (or at least his agenda). edit Just a realization. Tyler seeing Marla as a threat indirectly confirms that Tyler knows he's inside the Narrator's head, even though the Narrator himself is not initially aware of it.

I just watched "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" (2009) and I was wondering about the ending. Immediately after Nicolas Cage's character snorts a line from the bag of uncut heroin and sits next to his father's wife to watch the football game, it cuts to a scene in which he's walking into the police station, sitting down at his desk. One right after the other, all the loose ends get tied up. The money he owes his girlfriend's client is forgiven, the game turns around and his bookie gives him $15,000 in winnings, the speeding ticket magically gets taken care of and then the captain comes in and shows him evidence that will convict the heroin dealer. They then proceed to bust the heroin dealer and Nicolas Cage's character takes the high road and makes sure he's arrested instead of having an "accident". Later we find his girlfriend is pregnant, they have a house and his whole family has given up alcohol. We even find out that the man he saved at the beginning of the film is clean and getting his life on track. There are hints that he's still his bad self. He's snorting dope, he's harassing kids that are coming out a night club, etc, but overall it's very much a "Disney ending", with everything working out well for the lead character. My question is this: Is this ending real or is it really the last fevered fantasy of Nicolas Cage's character as he's dying from a heroin overdose? There are many references to the uncut heroin being too strong to take without being cut. Nicholas Cage's character mentions it to his girlfriend right before she tells him she's going to a meeting with his father. The gangsters tell him that he needs to cut the dope "unless you wanna kill the motherfucker". We see Nicolas Cage's character clearly snorting a line with the bag sitting next to it before the "Disney ending" starts. The ending also feels much too saccharine, especially for someone like Herzog. Also notice that when the "Disney ending" starts, the criminals that come in are talking about highly illegal activity, like murder, theft, gambling, prostitution and drug use, all while sitting at his desk without regard to discretion. There is even a scene where his bookie hands him $15,000 in cash, shows him the contents with his partner sitting in the desk next to him, clearly within earshot and line of sight of his partner sitting in the next desk. Another interesting fact is that Nicolas Cage's character is leading the arrest of the heroin dealer even though he's been pulled to the sidelines and had his weapon confiscated. Even the last scene, where he is sitting at the base of a large aquarium tank full of fish, can be interpreted a few ways. Perhaps it can be interpreted as "swimming with the fishes". There is also a reference to sleeping and dreaming, suggesting a tie to the original poem he found by the murdered child ("My friend is a fish. He live in my room. His fin is a cloud. He see me when I sleep.") with also the standard metaphor of death and sleep. I thought of this immediately when viewing the film and found it obvious, but from looking online, I don't find another reviewer who acknowledges this theory. Most seem to accept the ending at face value. I only found one review who even considered this possibility only to then casually dismiss it to deride Herzog for tacking on a Hollywood ending to what was an otherwise dark film. I also can't find any interviews with Herzog on the matter, but directors are often known to not talk about what kind of meaning their films have. Does anyone have conclusive evidence that this is the case? Does anyone have any references that would support this theory?

I just finished watching it, and was completely "Wtf?!?" throughout the whole last 10–15 minutes, which begin exactly when you said: right after he sits down next to his Dad's wife, with the scene immediately after, which shows us the guy who told the lieutenant (over and over) that he had made a bad mistake as he was leaving his (the lieutenant's) girlfriend's place sitting patiently and waiting for the lieutenant at his desk. From that moment until the very end, I found the movie more and more incredulous with each passing minute, until I literally guffawed out loud and said "Oh please......!" and I was watching it alone. I usually don't react audibly to films when I'm alone, so just to say the sudden difference was pretty extreme. In fact, right after around 4 loose ends were neatly tied up with a big bow, starting with above and ending with the lieutenant's boss saying they found the drug dealer's prints on a crack pipe at the murder scene, all within about 3 minutes time, I remember thinking "Oh, I get it now... this is like a drug dream or something... they're probably gonna show him waking up pretty soon." Then like I said, it started getting worse and worse. But the worst was yet to come: that was after, after he was honored with promotion to Captain with everyone in attendance, including his girl who was (of course) pregnant, and they all had their wineless dinner and he dropped her off at home, when the camera stayed on the picturesque little house with the pretty flowers and the almost perfect symmetry of the trees bookending the whole thing, with the radiant little (expecting) woman standing in front ... BIG INHALE ... that whole thing was just so cloyingly sweet and hokey and corny that it caused the aforementioned solitary audible "oh please!" moment :) Gotta accelerate this, or it'll be even longer than it's turning out to be: after the end I went online, looking for the inevitable explanation, and like you, I didn't find anything, until I saw what was written here, and you provided the little thing I was missing: the exact moment when it all started, which was right after he tooted from the open bag of very pure smack, and when you tied it together by reminding me about the prior warnings about its strength, etc, and I put all that together with a few other little things, like the fact his girlfriend chose the exact moment she did to go to rehab with the dad — just as he was waving that bag in front of her face, and find the strength to turn it down not once not twice but three times, because he kept trying — I saw that you nailed it, bro. You got it. You put it together. I am certain you are right. I'm actually 100% certain, not even 99. My reason is very simple: it all ties together perfectly. It makes too much sense for it to be anything else. It can't NOT be, in other words. A good filmmaker, who proved he was before this film and during this whole film up to the last 10–15 minutes does not "suddenly" become a bad, laughable, cliché director for those final 10–15 minutes! I'm certain you are right, bro. Kudos. I'm looking forward now to watch it again — ALL of it — this time keeping in mind what I now know, so I can catch all the little clues that I'm sure are there throughout and that I'm just not remembering right now. I'm sure there are some we both missed. In many ways this is like a very scaled down version of how David Chase actually prepared us for the Sopranos ending a few years ago ... most everybody had missed it then, too :)

From the IMDb page for The Lost Boys: In the first draft of the script, the character of David was originally named Peter, and other characters also had names from the Peter Pan story. In the final draft, many name changes were made, but originally the two brothers were Michael and John (which was later changed to Sam) and the mother's name was Wendy. But what was the reason for the character name changes in the final draft? Was it ever stated by officials?

TL;DR: The names were most likely updated to remove any whimsical tone of the characters. As others have commented, the names may have been changed to avoid copyright issues with Peter Pan. However, it's important to note that the overall tone of the film changed drastically between re-writes of the script, and the names were probably updated to reflect this. The original script was intended as a G-rated film in the vein of "Goonies" or "The Monster Squad" - a family-friendly movie inspired by the idea of Peter Pan as a vampire. When Joel Schumacher replaced Richard Donner as director, he reportedly hated that idea and wanted the movie to be more of a sexy, coming-of-age horror film. He brought on writer Jeffrey Boam to heavily modify the script, and it's likely at this point that the names were changed. Within that context, the changes make sense. The entire film was given a darker, more biblical context (David's body enshrined in light at the end, for example). Rather than a "cutesy" gang of immortal children, Schumacher envisioned the vampires as more akin to the gangs of 1979's "The Warriors". The soundtrack originally called for Madonna songs (whereas Goonies used Cyndi Lauper), and that was obviously updated to more of a heavy metal "hairband" sound. And so forth. Richard Donner left the project to make seminal action flick "Lethal Weapon", and the resulting version of "The Lost Boys" has become a classic vampire movie. As moviegoers, I'd say we were definitely the winners in this particular instance. Note: In addition to the facts on that IMDb trivia page you linked to, there are also some additional trivia tidbits on the page below, posted in celebration of the film's 25th anniversary. http://www.indiewire.com/2012/08/5-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-lost-boys-on-its-25th-anniversary-251374/

Better Call Saul's episodes feel like they have a pattern in their naming convention to me, but I can't quite figure it out and I haven't been able to find any articles on it. Uno Mijo Nacho Hero Alpine Shepherd Boy Five-O Bingo Rico Pimento Maro They are almost all short words that end in 'o', but I figure the pattern must have more meaning than that. Does anyone know what the pattern is?

According to this Quora post this started out as a coincidence, but the creators liked the idea. The show creators Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould mentioned in one of the insider podcasts that this started out as a coincidence, but once they noticed it for a few episodes they tried to do it intentionally for all of them because they knew fans would notice. The episode titled "Jello" was changed because they didn't have rights to it since it's trademarked. The source of this information is this insider podcast.