My theory is this: Banner can already control The Hulk at the beginning of Avengers

This is shown when he is about to show his 'secret' to Black Widow the first time.

They are then interrupted (I forget by what already) before he can show her (presumably, his instant transformation).

It is then shown (in a very epic fashion) that he can turn into The Hulk at will when the giant Chitauri is approaching them stating to Widow

"I'm always angry".

However, when Loki was escaping and caused the floor to pop out from underneath him and Widow, he then loses this control due to the sudden nature of the event and therefore doesn't have full control over The Hulk, hence the battle with Thor.

My impression was everyone kept assuming the hulk was something he was constantly fighting for control, and whenever he got angry enough to lose his focus he'd run wild, when the reality was Banner doesn't "lose" to the Hulk, he calls him out.

Once he transforms he doesn't have a great deal of control over what the Hulk decides to smash, because like he keeps saying, it's 'another guy' taking over at that point, but the choice to change is Banner's.

It makes sense if you accept Banner the man isn't necessarily a great person to begin with, which I don't think he's ever claimed to be, and can get to the point where he actually wants to unleash the Hulk and let the consequences be damned.

This also explains why he'd run off to hide in one of the most densely populated areas of the world, where the collateral damage would be massive if he ever let the Hulk out.

It's not to get himself away from stress, it's to put himself in a position where the cost of calling the hulk would be more than he's willing to pay.

On the airship

Loki manipulates them all into wanting to fight each other, which explains why Banner would let the Hulk come out to play, he wasn't losing control over a monster, he was just as eager to throw down as the Cap and Stark were a few seconds earlier.

Just a thought.

When Banner and Stark were in the lab, Stark poked Banner with something.

Then in the same scene he said something along the lines of "I learned to control Iron Man with this thing (points to light on chest)

- you can control the Hulk with something too."

Banner then says something like: "That won't work for me."

Tony then says something like, "Yeah you will, you'll see."

Then Banner turns into Hulk on the ship, but whatever Tony did hadn't kicked in yet (at least not fully).

This is also why Tony knew that Banner would show up at the final battle , saying "Let me know when Banner gets here, okay?

" to everyone's surprise, because he knew that Banner should be feeling the effects of whatever Tony did to him.

Then, at the very end, Bruce and Tony ride off together - because now they are close friends who understand each other and share scientific acumen as well.

As we saw in the end of the Incredible Hulk, Bruce banner has to have some form of calmness and meditation before he transforms, it's the difference between being calm and under a lot of stress and anger.

Also he has to have a clear picture on his enemies and his allies before transforming On the helicarrier they all fought with each other which caused stress and anger, and to top that Hawkeye blew up one of the engines which caused more stress and anger so the situation took advantage of Bruce, (Hulk controls Banner)

In the city we see him much more calm and at ease before transforming.

Captain America tells him that now would be a good time to 'get angry' meaning to transform and Bruce responds by say his secret is that he is always 'angry' just another way of saying he can always transform at will and thus Bruce takes control of Hulk!

He learned to control Hulk , as you could see when he didn't try to smash all of the avengers along the enemy.

On helicarrier he still din't know "his secret", that's why he pummeled them all.

At first he tried to control his anger, on helicarrier it was proven impossible and as a completely wrong solution...

After that he realized that he should stop trying to control himself and let his anger take over, which lets him maintain some control.

Simply put he was never calm, he was just building up his rage, that's why he said "I'm always angry".

It seemed to me that Banner's influence over the Hulk depended on how much control he had over the transformation.

The first time, he transformed because he was in pain, and Hulk was out of his control.

The second time, he transformed by choice for a specific reason.

Helping things along was the fact that during the second transformation, Hulk had a lot of targets to take his rage out on - and no enclosed, confined spaces, either.

Think of it as the difference between a professional football player getting knocked down in a crowded nightclub, versus getting knocked down in the middle of a game.

In the second case, he's prepared for it, and has a strategy for venting his anger in the next minute.

In the first, he's blindsided.

Question: During the climatic battle, Banner says 'That's my secret. I'm always angry', and transforms into the Hulk. Does this imply that Banner learned how to control Hulk?   If this is the case, why did he transform during the Helicarrier attack?

Banner's control of Hulk in Avengers

My impression was everyone kept assuming the hulk was something he was constantly fighting for control, and whenever he got angry enough to lose his focus he'd run wild, when the reality was Banner doesn't "lose" to the Hulk, he calls him out. Once he transforms he doesn't have a great deal of control over what the Hulk decides to smash, because like he keeps saying, it's 'another guy' taking over at that point, but the choice to change is Banner's.

As soon as he transforms he doesn't have a great deal of control over what the Hulk decides to smash

Banner doesn't "lose" to the Hulk, he calls him out. Once he transforms he doesn't have a great deal of control over what the Hulk decides to smash. This also explains why he'd run off to hide in one of the most densely populated areas of the world. It's not to get himself away from stress, it's to put himself in a position where the cost of calling the hulk would be more than he's willing to pay .


I think the ending is intentionally ambiguous, so each member of the audience can draw their own conclusion.

Even if Ottway kills the Alpha, will the rest of the pack let him survive?

If you watched past the credits, you saw that there was a very short (maybe two seconds) scene where we see Ottway and the Alpha wolf after they fight.

They're both alive, but badly injured.

Ottway's head is resting on top of the wolf's body.

Since both are so badly injured, I think it's unlikely that either one of them will survive.

It's symbolic: honor your life and confront your fears.

The whole movie was about his ambivalence about living after his wife died.

He fought the enemy honoring "life" and symbolically, he won.

That's my take.

Its almost certain that after someone or something kills the alpha of a pack, then the other wolves back off, praise, or even make them the new leader of their group.

Because the alpha was lying weakly on the bed of snow at the brief scene after the credits, it should be obvious that he was killed or in the middle of dying.

Otherwise, he'd undoubtedly be eating John and so would the others.

Meanwhile, John is lying and resting his head on the side of the black alpha wolf.

We're not certain if he's dead or if he survived, but the one thing we know is that the wolf is dead.

One thing I can say about the way the wolf died was by the dagger John held and the broken glasses he wrapped around his hand (which looked to be some sort of medicine tube).

John must have known something about the glasses because he was a huntsman after all, maybe containing poison to kill off the wolves.

Either way the wolf was dead and as for John, its really up to you to figure that out.

Odds are, he was sitting there thinking and praying judging the way the director casted him always in deep thought.

I think the ending is fairly obvious, if you recall toward the beginning of the film Ottway shoots a wolf trying to attack the drillers.

While the injured wolf is dying in the snow Ottway hovers over it and places his hand on the wolfs chest, the entire time we are clearly seeing the final labored breaths of the dying animal which is very similar to the scene at the end of the movie.

Its pretty clear they both died, unless Ottway was pooped and decided to spoon with the alpha for a bit before returning to his aimless wandering through the Alaskan wilderness.

Furthermore this scenario would never happen since pack alpha's rarely do any of the killing, however they do in conjunction with the beta's decide who eats first.

Also, wolves are absolutely timid around humans, most documented fatalities have been children during the 18th and 19th century in North America.

Although there are circumstances that would cause a wolf to attack, its very rare - I think shark and bear attacks are more common compared to wolves.

The idea that these wolves would hunt these men down one by one like velociraptors is far-fetched unto itself but certainly makes for great cinema.

Live and die on this day...

the wolf died, Liam lived.

Otherwise the wolf would have been eating him and his buddies would have joined in.

Either that way, or Liam found the meaning of life on the same day he died.

Question: I am confused, what happened at the end of  The Grey (2011) ? Did Ottway die or did he manage to survive?

What happened at the end of The Grey?

I think the ending is intentionally ambiguous, so each member of the audience can draw their own conclusion.  Since both are so badly injured, I think it's unlikely that either one of them will survive.

I think the ending is intentionally ambiguous, so each member of the audience can draw their own conclusion. They're both alive, but badly injured.


Via Jerry Della Femina, the veteran ad exec widely regarded as one of Madison Avenue's biggest personalities, most creative thinkers and an over-the-top publicity-seeker: Q:

Did ad agency executives really drink that often — and that much — in the 1960s?

A:

If anything, it's underplayed.

There was a tremendous amount of drinking.

Three-martini lunches were the norm.

Q:

But the show makes it look like everyone kept a bottle or two in their desk drawer.

And it wasn't Geritol.

A: Bottles in desk drawers were not the exception but the rule.

I had an open bar at the agency in which I kept 10 to 15 bottles of booze.

Anyone at the agency could walk in and get it.

Invariably, one or two guys would come in at 9 a.m., pour a shot and slug it down.

It was a business of drinking.

The way we lived really would make the characters in Mad Men all look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.

We drank and screwed around.

Q:

Did agency executives really smoke that much?

A:

I smoked three to four packs a day.

Everybody smoked at all times in all meetings.

Once, when I was sitting in a meeting for the Contac account, I had a (lit) cigarette in my hand and another in the ashtray.

When I put down the cigarette to do a chalk talk, I tried to light the piece of chalk.

Source

My grandmother used to be a big city office secretary back in the late 1950s and early 1960s when she was in her 20s before she became a housewife

and she has told me that most people smoked in the office back then and it was very normal.

She said her boss usually smoked two to three packs a day just at the office and that she'd have to empty his ashtray several times a day and also bring him a fresh cigarettes anytime he asked for it.

She said she was expected to keep at least two cartons of cigarettes in her desk drawer for him

so he didnt run out, and that she was told to order his cigarettes just like ordering office supplies for pens, paper, staples etc.

He also told her she could order herself cigarettes when ordering his, and as long as she smoked the same brand he did, she could smoke all she wanted while at work.

She also told me that her boss drank often at work, and that he kept both several bottles on a bar at the back of his office and that he also kept a bottle or two in his desk.

Again, she said hed have her order bottles for him to keep in her desk as backup.

She also said that it was not uncommon for the guys to go out for drinks after working late, but also that on more than one occasion her boss would take her out to a fancy dinner in the City, just the two of them, even though he was married to another woman.

When I told her how strange that seemed now, she just laughed and said I would even recognize the workplace, especially with all the sexual harassment suits and stuff now.

That was of particular interest to me since I had been the subject of sexual harassment at the workplace recently, and I asked her if shed ever been harassed.

She said "not unwillingly" and proceeded to tell me about how she used to sleep with her boss from time to time.

Yikes.

My mother was an office secretary in New York in the 1960s and 70s, and she told me that the general representation on MadMen that a lot of people really did chain smoke three of four packs a day back then was actually pretty dead-on accurate.

She said that she continued to smoke at least three packs a day herself back then through the 80s and most of the 90s, even after she moved to the southern US, before eventually trying to cut down to only a pack a day in the early 2000s shortly before being diagnosed with emphysema.

With that kind of background, it seems almost inevitable that I would have ended up a two pack a day smoker myself, even though our company banned smoking in the office back in 2003.

I had just started working in the office in the late 90s, and a big attraction for me was the fact that several other women here had ashtrays on their desk and could smoke at work.

It was frowned upon even then, despite being allowed, but the first 4 or 5 years I worked here, I could smoke at my desk and it wasn't a big deal.

But then in 2003, once they banned smoking in the office, I think my office productivity took a nose dive.

I'm only 43 and even going back to when I started work (1990) in the IT industry in the UK smoking was rife in almost offices

and I worked alongside guys who would routinely go out drinking quite heavily for two hours at lunch.

I have a friend who works for a large Japanese company at their head office and even today they smoke a very great deal in their open offices and there's a drinks cabinet in most senior's offices.

So this wasn't too long ago

, I'd imagine MM was pretty much on the money.

Yeah, people smoked and drank a lot in the 50s/60s.

You can see it even in family TV shows

like I Love Lucy, early episodes of The Flintstones,

Bewitched - I don't think a single episode of that show ever passed without someone having at least one drink - and in most of the family adventure shows, like Mission Impossible and The Man From Uncle and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea

, members of the principle casts all smoked from time to time on camera.

Heck, there's an episode of Star Trek where you can clearly see cigarette smoke where an actor hastily put his hand out of shot to hide that he was smoking (McCoy/DeForest Kelly).

Question: Though the stories and characters have become the focal point for analysis as Mad Men has evolved, early in its existence there was a great deal of discussion regarding the amount of smoking and drinking the characters do. (See  this  New York Times article from 2007 for one example).   How accurate is this presentation? Is that what the advertising world was like in the 1960s? What about other businesses?  Essentially: is the portrayal of business professional smoking and drinking in excess   while at work   presented in Mad Men accurate?

How accurate are the smoking and drinking habits of the characters on Mad Men?

Yeah, people smoked and drank a lot in the 50s/60s.You can see it even in family TV shows.

People smoked and drank a lot in the 50s/60s. That is obvious in films and TV shows


I think the two main reasons behind this are: That Sauron is slowly increasing his powers over the whole timeline of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings - the stories of which take place over an 80 year period.

That Bilbo never receives the attention of Sauron in quite the same way that Frodo does.

Bilbo's 111th birthday party which starts the story of the Lord of the Rings, and where Bilbo gives the ring to Frodo, takes place about 60 years after the events of The Hobbit.

A further 18 years elapses before Frodo starts to bear the ring towards Mordor to destroy it.

In the distant past, Sauron was defeated by Isildur and thought to be destroyed, however he is slowly rebuilding his power for literally hundreds of years under the guise of being The Necromancer of Dol Guldur.

Sauron does not even openly declare himself until about 10 years after Bilbo finds the ring, and he believes the ring has been lost in the area he was defeated by Isildur.

So at the time that Bilbo owns the ring, Sauron is not as powerful, and he believes the ring is lost and is searching for it in the wrong area.

In Tolkien's writings, Bilbo's party is in S.R. (Shire Reckoning) 1401.

It is not until some time between 1409 and 1417 that Gollum (venturing into Mordor seeking the ring himself) is captured by Sauron.

Since Gollum is released only a year before the Nazgul actively start seeking for "Baggins" one can guess that it is likely that this happens towards the end of this time period.

So it is well after Bilbo is no longer the owner and active user of the ring that Sauron starts to seek him.

Frodo obeys Gandalf's recommendations and does not use the ring in this period, and breaks this for the first time 'accidentally' in the Prancing Pony very briefly, and does not seem to suffer particularly from the experience.

It is when he is attacked by the Nazgul on Weathertop that he first starts to see things - and even then it is primarily the nearby Nazgul that can sense and see him - not Sauron yet from his tower hundreds of miles away.

Also Bilbo stays in the Shire with the ring whereas Frodo brings the ring ever closer to Sauron in the attempt to destroy it, so its possible

the closer he comes to Mordor the more powerful and corruptive a hold it gains on Frodo.

Frodo also KNEW more of the ring than Bilbo (Gandalf told Frodo whereas with Bilbo he pretty much just kept an eye on the hobbit).

That knowing would alter how Frodo would use the ring - whether he willed it or not.

Additionally, Bilbo never sought to DESTROY the ring, thus the Ring had no reason to protect itself from Bilbo and therefore had less of a grip on him.

Also, in the very end of the third movie(I haven't read the books in a long time :

\ ) when they are headed towards the sea to leave with the elves, Bilbo, who looks like his life force is held on by a string asks Frodo if he still has the ring and even says, "I would have liked to have held it one last time".

I agree, the movie timeline is really not apparent.

You assume the extreme aging of Bilbo is because he no longer has the ring.

The movies make it feel like the trilogy took half a year lol.

Except for the end when Frodo says to Sam, "It's been four years...".

Why would Sauron ever think that the ring was destroyed?

Is he not DIRECTLY linked to the ring?

IF it was destroyed would he not also be killed?

There are a few reasons.

When Bilbo had the Ring Sauron was relatively inactive and geographically distant.

It is fairly strongly implied that the Ring began to 'wake up' in some sense as Sauron began to return to power.

Bilbo never really understood the full significance of the ring while it was in his possession

and it's entirely possible that that knowledge, just in itself was a factor.

Another important factor is the would he received on Weathertop.

It's explicitly stated that the shard of the Morgul Knife was in the process of turning him into a wraith

and so it seems logical that this might well increase the hold that the ring had.

It is certainly mentioned at several points that this injury has a lingering effect.

Also Frodo comes much closer, physically to the influence of Sauron.

On Amon Hen he comes close to being discovered by the Eye which by now is actively searching for him and again it is explicitly explained that as he gets closer to Mordor and Mount Doom specifically he becomes increasingly aware of the influence of teh ring to the point where is feels like a crushing physical weight.

What spurred Gandalf to come to the Shire and to organize the Fellowship to try and destroy the Ring?

It was because Gollum, searching to regain the Ring, wandered close to Mordor and was captured and interrogated by Sauron.

The entire time Bilbo had the Ring, Sauron was quietly biding his time, and gathering his Ring-less strength, while the Ring languished, lost, in the deep caverns beneath mountains, with Gollum.

After Frodo got the Ring, a stronger Sauron became aware that the Ring was not lost, and began to actively seek the Ring, both his his servants (the Nazgul, Sauruman) and with his own consciousness.

He was actively using his powers, focused towards the Shire, to try and find the Ring, and the Ring was seeking him, as well.

It makes sense that it would be more likely to draw his specific attention in the latter timeframe.

Question: Every time Frodo put on the ring the Eye of Sauron could see where he was and almost see into his soul as well. Frodo appeared to suffer hugely when he put the ring on.  Bilbo was able to turn invisible and have no side effects or suffering when he wore it.  What changed between Bilbo having the ring and then passing it on to Frodo?  Were the Nazgûl looking for the ring when Bilbo had it or was it only around the time Frodo got the ring?

Why did the ring affect Frodo so much and not Bilbo?

When Bilbo had the Ring Sauron was relatively inactive and geographically distant. Frodo comes much closer, physically to the influence of Sauron and it is strongly implied that the Ring began to 'wake up' in some sense as Sauron began to return to power.

It is fairly strongly implied that the Ring began to 'wake up' in some sense as Sauron began to return to power. It is explicitly stated that the shard of the Morgul Knife was in the process of turning him into a wraith. As Frodo gets closer to Mordor and Mount Doom he becomes increasingly aware of the influence of teh ring to the point where is feels like a crushing physical weight. It seems logical that this might well increase the hold that the ring had on Frodo .


There are 3 possible motives for David.

He wanted to test the black-goo to " try harder ".

David was receiving orders from Weyland as he told "Try Harder!".

The scene where David spikes Charlie's drink happens after the 'try harder' scene (with Vickers).

David goes to Holloway, asks him how far he is willing to go to find his answers, and Holloway replies he would do whatever it takes .

David takes this as an invitation to experiment with the goo on Holloway , ultimately at Weyland's request.

David is simply following orders.

So my guess is that, he probably wanted to test it , just in case it turned out to be what Weyland was looking for, an immortality potion or something He wanted to kill the crew to gain his freedom .

David starts to hate the humans.

Note how antagonistic Holloway had a jerk towards David.

When Holloway asking David why he's wearing a suit as much to say '

you're not one of us, why are you bothering to try?'

He wanted to kill Dr. Holloway to remove him as competition for Dr.

Shaw

He seemed to pay more attention to her from the start by looking in on her dreams and taking special care of her when she awoke from cryo.

I think when he tried to put her back into cryo he was trying to do what was best for her.

I also thought that, at the end, whenhe said he was afraid she had been killed that he was beinggenuine .

David:

I was scared you were dead.

Shaw: you know nothing about being scared, david.

David has multiple motivations: to help Weyland achieve Weyland's goal, which is to contact engineers so engineers can help Weyland cheat death.

After all David is a computer with a programmed purpose: serving Weyland.("Try harder" is Weyland telling David to keep looking for a living engineer, which David then does successfully.) to reveal how humans were not special but instead -- like David -- were created by other intelligent beings.

This is the irony underlying Holloway's insulting David.

In the very beginning of the film David's hair style is different, then we see him watching the film while he is coloring the roots of his hair to match Peter's, and then he combs it so that he has the same hair style.

He later repeats the phrase "The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts".

I think David repeats that line two or three times.

I took this to imply that David's natural appearance is different including his hair color.

Is this sequence connected to David's fascination with the Engineers.

Absolutely, because this scene defines a repeating theme that David tents to overly obsess over things related to the human condition.

I think you have to watch Lawrence of Arabia to understand what was being implied by that scene.

Why did David infect the Doctor?

David is seen reporting to Peter Weyland that the Engineers are all dead, and he then explains that Peter Weyland ordered him to "try harder" to discover what happen to them.

Did Peter tell David to infect a crew member, or did David conceive this idea on his own?

That isn't made clear in the film.

Later in the film, Peter Weyland is told to take off his helmet and Elizabeth protests saying that the infection that killed the Doctor could be air born.

Peter Weyland appears to not know that the Doctor is dead, and David just gives Elizabeth a look.

What was his motivation?

David says "big things have small beginnings" and then later while talking to the Doctor.

He says "if you could meet your creator, what would you say?".

I really feel that David understood that the dark fluid was a virus, and that it created life.

In that scene David expresses a fascination with meeting ones creator, and also his disapproval of humans.

I think he gave it to the Doctor, so he could destroy his creator and turn himself into a creator at the same time.

While answering the question, what does this black stuff really do?

Here's my biggest problem with it: David knows absolutely nothing about the black goo.

What would make him think that it could create, change, preserve, whatever, human life?

I mean, if you happened to come across a bunch of black goo would your first thought be to feed it to some animals.

Even if it contains a bunch of nutrients, eating an egg doesn't cause a chicken to start growing in my body.

So he just comes up with this alien virus/embryo idea out of nowhere.

Not only that, but they have an awesome lab there, why doesn't he just use that to run some experiments on it?

Why doesn't he work with the other scientists to find out more about it?

Surely that would aid the old man just as much if not more than david working alone.

Even if you make the argument that he is just following orders, that just shifts the blame from him to the old man.

It doesn't really change the fact that his motives make no sense whatsoever.

My 2 Strongest theories about this are: He turned out to hate the humans due to the actions of Dr.

Holloway .

To me, since the first time David and Holloway met... I always had the gut feeling that David was going to do something to Holloway sooner or later.

I mean, Holloway was being such an ass towards David!

Plus, not only that..

but.. to me, it seemed as if he knew that the black goo was dangerous.

One reason why I believe he knew is that he didn't inform the crew about taking that black goo back with him.

He has a thing for Shaw.

If you think about it, what Vijin said is true.

And, I do not want to type all about it when the informations already up here, lol.

Question: For me, perhaps the most interesting person aboard the Prometheus was the android, David. I'm still confused by his seeming fascination with the movie,  Lawrence of Arabia . Although I couldn't make notes during the film, I believe that he quoted Peter O'toole's character, Lawrence, on more than one occasion. Was he attempting to attain a similar achievement with the Engineers as Lawrence did with the Arabs? Why did he infect the Crew leader? What was his motivation?

What was David's motivation in Prometheus?

David is a computer with a programmed purpose: serving Weyland.is motivation is  to help Weyland achieve Weyland's goal, which is to contact engineers so engineers can help Weyland cheat death.

David is a computer with a programmed purpose: serving Weyland. He is designed to contact engineers so engineers can help Weylands cheat death. David is also designed to reveal how humans were not special but instead -- like David -- were created by other intelligent beings.


It's never explicitly said in the film, but if we listen closely the apartment scene we can understand Marvin was their informant within that group.

Here is the script of the scene.

Jules - "We should have shotguns for this kinda deal." Vincent - "How many are up there?" Jules - "Three or four."

Vincent - "

That's counting our guy ?"

Jules - "Not sure." Vincent - "

So that means there could be up to five guys up there?"

Jules -

"It's possible.

When Vincent says "That's counting our guy" Marvin was their guy who's the informant.

After shooting Brett and the others, Vincent says to Jules, "

Do you know this guy?

" and Jules responds,

"Yeah" .

This is why they didn't shoot him.

They did not kill Marvin because he was part of Wallace's network and was an informer in the gang.

Remember they asked "why didn't you tell us there was a man in the kitchen with a god damn cannon?"

or something like that.

This shows that they were expecting him to provide this info and logically he was their man (mentioned in the hallway).

If they had killed him then there would be little incentive for people to inform on gangs that had betrayed Wallace in the future.

This is also, probably, why Jules and Vincent are uninterested in the excuses

"You're ass ain't talking your way out of this" because regardless of what they say the hitmen know their true plan from Marvin.

According to Phil LaMarr (actor who played Marvin), from his AMA (Ask Me Anything) post on Reddit /r/IAMA , it's because (emphasis mine):

The back story that Quentin and I talked about was that Marvin and Jules had people in common and when this briefcase thing went down Jules was able to get in touch w/ Marvin and offered these guys who were holed up, scared and obviously way out of their depth a way to resolve this .

"All you have to do is make sure the door is unlocked at 7:45." He didn't know exactly how it was going to be resolved and he wasn't street-smart enough to figure that the resolution might have a significant cost.

I think that marvin was his informant, but was going to try to double cross Jules and Vincent.

THAT'S why the guy was in the bathroom with a gun.

Jules himself says, we should be dead.

Divine intervention stopping the bullets?

That's why Vince gets so upset at Marvin for 'forgetting' that the guy was in the bathroom with a hand cannon.

Jules' attention is focused on that they weren't killed.

Later, divine justice is laid upon Marvin for his attempt at a double cross, when he gets shot in the face.

I think that, if Jules attention hasn't been distracted, they might have killed Marvin in the apartment.

Because of the total screwup.

Marvin was a nobody.

Signified by Wolf later, who described him as 'nobody who'll be missed'.

Just my opinion.

Well for starters, Marvin was their informant and Brett, Roger (guy on the couch) and Man #4 (hand cannon guy, guy in bathroom) were the targets.

Man #4 could have survived if he had stayed in the bathroom.

Anyhow, Marvin was not purposely killed because he was ratting his fellow pencil-neck college students out so he could live.

A choice he later regretted ( as you can see when Brett is killed )

but due to Vincent Vega's poor gun safety skills, Marvin gets his head blown off.

Also the reason it all happened in the first place was because Brett and his friends refused to give up the brief case for whatever reason.

Question: In Pulp Fiction, Vincent and Jules killed all the guys at Brett's apartment for stealing the briefcase from Marsellus Wallace but not Marvin.  Why didn't Vincent and Jules kill Marvin in Pulp Fiction?

Why didn't Vincent and Jules kill Marvin?

They did not kill Marvin because he was part of Wallace's network and was an informer in the gang.If they had killed him then there would be little incentive for people to inform on gangs that had betrayed Wallace in the future.

Marvin was part of Wallace's network and was an informer in the gang. If they had killed him then there would be little incentive for people to inform on gangs that had betrayed Wallace in the future. Jules and Vincent are uninterested in the excuses.

Marvin and Jules had people in common  and when this briefcase thing went down  Jules was able to get in touch with Marvin and offered these guys


Analyzing the past two films and Rises, Nolan (Director) and his brother Jonathan (Screenplay Writer) are trying to envision a world where they asked the question… "What if...

Batman existed in our current world today as opposed to the comics."

Thus the feel and directing has a less comic book-ish (if that's a word) look, and more of a real world view.

This film take on Robin is quite incredible when you think about it.

Like the previous person in this article wrote, he is an embodiment of all the Robin’s in the comics.

In contrast you have Nolan’s Robin ( John Blake ) who is, at this point, the first Robin “ Dick Grayson ” to Batman.

He’s referred to being hot headed and angry like the Robin “ Jason Todd ”.

For the “ Tim Drake ” Robin…

well, he was the one that was able to deduce batman of his true identity and was also depicted as an orphan.

And with the film using elements from the “The Dark Knight Returns” comic by Frank Miller, the role of

that Robin was a female “ Carrie ”.

The whole point of Nolan's Batman is a meditation on myth and legend.

He includes these things to imply, I think, that the version of batman we learnt about over the years is a myth based on some things which may or may not have happened, events passed on by word of mouth and stories.

As in all myths, names change over time, get jumbled up, and the story changes like Chinese whispers.

so Nolan's version is one telling of the myth.

The next director will tell another version.

In one version of the myth Robin is his side kick, in another his successor.

In one version two face carries on damaging the city symbolically due to the draconian laws past as a reaction to his death and the lies his death propagates which eat away at the soul of Gotham; in another myth he literally goes on damaging the city as a criminal.

It's kind of like the various gospels in religion.

I think Nolan left it in the idea that Batman is retiring and wanted to end the saga unlike the comic book stories which run infinitely.

He wanted Blake to take over the legacy from Batman and probably plays a little homage to Robin like Ducard's reference from the comics as pointed out earlier.

Also using Dick Grayson would've led people to believe before the movie that we might see Robin that's also another reason why they had to wait til the end.

I took the mention of his first name being Robin as a sly joke.

He is an amalgamation of all the sidekicks Batman has had and was essentially the Robin character in spirit.

The problem was that the dynamic between batman and robin had become so campy and ridiculous in the film representations they needed to approach it in a fresh way and not have him deck out in tights and run around after bats.

So he could be taken as a Robin character and also can become the Batman much like Dick Grayson did in the comics.

Because some non-comic readers aren't familiar with Dick's name, and Nolan didn't have the sense to reveal his real name as Grayson and throw in a line about him being a Boy Wonder (which would have clued in the audience AND satisfied the fans).

Question: Near the end of The Dark Knight Rises, we learn that     John Blake's birth name is Robin, and that John Blake is merely an alias.   What motivated the Nolan brothers to include this in the film? Are they merely nudging and winking at the audience? Furthermore, why  Robin?  The real Robin's (original) name is Dick Grayson (though as the character evolved, was reborn, became Nightwing among others his identity changed).

Why choose that birth name for John Blake?

Perhaps Nolan left it in the idea that Batman is retiring and wanted to end the saga unlike the comic book stories which run infinitely. He wanted Blake to take over the legacy from Batman and probably plays a little homage to Robin like Ducard's reference from the comics as pointed out earlier. Also using Dick Grayson would've led people to believe before the movie that we might see Robin that's also another reason why they had to wait til the end.

Nolan left it in the idea that Batman is retiring and wanted to end the saga unlike the comic book stories which run infinitely. Also using Dick Grayson would've led people to believe before the movie that we might see Robin that's also another reason why they had to wait til the end.


Considering the chanting we hear ("Deh-shay, deh-shay bah-sah-rah, bah-sah-rah,") is Moroccan , I think we can assume the pit is is North Africa somewhere.

The pit in the Dark Knight Rises is located is near the fort of Mahendragarh in India.

It's located near Thar Desert in the Rajasthan state.

I have seen local news paper headlines of the Dark Knight Rises team visiting here for shooting...

The pit, as was shown in the film, is located in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

In the brief moment when Talia Al Ghul comes out of it, one can see the Mehrangarh Fort in the background.

Even Confirmed from Wkipedia

The third movie of The Dark Knight trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises, was partially shot around the Mehrangarh fort.

A few scenes included the prison well within which Bruce Wayne is shown to have been imprisoned.

There is one particular shot when Wayne emerges from the prison that actually gives a glimpse of the Mehrangarh Fort in the background.

The scene involving Ras Al Ghul also seem to be filmed in fort.

The inside of the pit is a famous Step well called Chand Baori which is in Dausa district, Rajasthan, India.(Borrowed answer from Quora ).

The prison is located near the Mehrangarh fort of Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

I have visited this fort a couple of times as my maternal uncle resides there.

Actually, if you look closely to the frame when Bruce Wayne comes out of the pit you can see blue houses beside the fort.

That's because many of the houses in the city of Jodhpur are colored with blue lime.

That's the reason why Jodhpur is also known as 'The Blue City'.

I think that clears your doubt and answers your question as well.

The Pit is far from Gotham (Which, by the way is in New Jersey, not New York, just so people know).

It was filmed in India, but the film location and the actual in story location are not the same.

The Pit is officially in a 'Middle Eastern' Country, but it is never specified which.

This is meant to leave it intentionally vague, since DC has many fictional countries like Kahndaq (quoting Dc's wikia): "Kahndaq is an Arab country on the continent of Africa located between Egypt and Jordan."

except when you look at the Continent it is on in the side bar, it says Asia (which actually matches the real world map concept that the Middle East is considered part of Asia), and if you consider what it says, it essentially is Israel... though other references have Kahndaq frequently considered part of what is Iran.

This all convolutes matters, since Israel, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Iraq (which also has DC fictional Qurac as a stand-in at times), and Libya (which has its own stand-in at times of Bialya, a near anagram) (among others) are all acknowledged to exist in DC as well... Since making it in a real country could be taken as offensive, Bialya has Queen Bee ruling it, and Kahndaq is ruled by Black Adam...

Qurac would seem the most likely place in DC's fictional Middle Eastern countries to place the Pit.

Note this part is only my theory, but since the Pit is a pastiche for multiple places in the mainstream Batman Mythos, and is further complicated by being filmed in India yet having a Moroccan Chant, and supposed to be in the Middle East, the conjecture is fairly sound with the available information.

Fun note:

Joker in the comics actually was given Diplomatic Immunity for a while by being declared Iran's UN Ambassador.

So, there is always still Iran, as well.

The background when he comes out of the well was clearly Mehangarh fort,Jodhpur.

But there is no well near by fort.

They made a wall in a round shape, so that it looks like a well but some scenes (inside well) were shot in Jaipur (chand baori), Just search "DEEPEST STEP WELL".

Question: What is the geographic location of the pit Bruce Wayne is imprisoned in by Bane? Is this prison in Gotham or somewhere else? Bane and Bruce seems to travel between the two rather quickly. It seems like a Middle Eastern location when Talia's mother is dropped in.    Any ideas?

What is the geographic location of the pit Bruce Wayne is imprisoned in by Bane?

The prison is located near the Mehrangarh fort of Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. If you look closely to the frame when Bruce Wayne comes out of the pit you can see blue houses beside the fort. Many of the houses in the city are colored with blue lime. That's the reason why Jodhpur is also known as 'The Blue City'.


Exactly two years, by the end of the 5th season.

Season 1 starts off with Walt's 50th birthday.

When Walt comes back to Albuquerque in the end of Season 5, he starts of the day by celebrating his 52nd birthday:

The show ends on the same in-universe day.

In the pilot, we see Walt celebrate his 50th birthday

(this is where we see the "bacon spelling out his age" thing for the first time).

In S5E4 Fifty-One , we see him celebrate his 51st birthday.

In S5E1, we see a flashforward where Walt is celebrating his 52nd birthday alone in a diner.

In the last episode, we see the flashforward resume, so the show ends around Walt's 52nd birthday.

Beyond that, I'm not sure how long each season was, but those are some anchor points for how much time has passed during the show.

Perhaps it's because I'm a mother of very small children, but it helped me to look at the age of Walt's new daughter to help me somewhat decipher the passage of time in the series.

Skyler was pregnant in the first episode, and the daughter was born in the second season.

She's still an infant, which means to me that a year hasn't passed yet since her birth.

Watching the little girl grow might help to determine how much time passes in each season.

In S02E13 , Jane's father reports that Jane was born on April 4, 1982.

In S03E01 , the TV news reports that Jane was 26 years old.

Assuming these are are correct and we are using the standard US convention of reporting ages, then Jane's death took place some time between April 4th, 2008 and April 3rd, 2009.

In S05E08 , one character said, "I mean, whacking bin Laden wasn't this complicated."

Since "whacking bin Laden" is spoken of in the past tense, we can reasonably infer that this was after May 2nd, 2011 (when Osama was killed).

Since the series started on Walt's 50th birthday and ended on his 52nd birthday, the series spanned exactly two years (or more precisely 2y 1d).

(1) and (2) together imply that the series spanned at least at least 2y 30d.

This contradicts (3).

Given this contradiction, it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion regarding how much time has passed in Breaking Bad.

Q.E.D.

I'm pretty certain that season 2 episode 12 was set in March 2009 as Jane was born in April 1982 and

her dad said she would be turning 27 the following month.

Working back using the timeline posted elsewhere the series began in October 2008 and this was when Walt turned 50.

What all that means is that each season has only covered about three months.

Question: Unlike some shows that generally keep similar pace with real life—where a season is a year— Breaking Bad  doesn't seem to.  Currently (part-way though season 5), the characters were remarking that it had been a year since Walt's cancer diagnosis, though I forgot when that was relative to the premiere (if it happened 'then', or in a flashback).  How much time (in universe) has passed in each season of  Bad ?

How much time has passed in Breaking Bad?

Season 1 starts off with Walt's 50th birthday and at the end of Season 5, he starts off the day by celebrating his 52nd birthday. So, Exactly 2 years have passed by the end of the 5th season.

Exactly two years, by the end of the 5th season. Season 1 starts off with Walt's 50th birthday. When Walt comes back to Albuquerque in the end of Season 5, he starts of the day by celebrating his 52nd birthday:


When Bruce is packing up his stuff the doctor says the following to him.

Doctor:

"Ah supplies for your journey.

Oh that's, that's wonderful!"

So I imagine it contains things vital to stay alive once he leaves the pit such as food and water.

He packs some food.

He's assuming he'll escape, but he needs provisions to survive on the surface, as he doesn't know where he is.

first time Bruce carries a bundle with him during the first trip.

Although it is not shown what is it that he carries, nor is it mentioned in the Script.

second time

This time Bruce does not carry anything, he simply walks determined to the ropeway and starts climbing.

third time INT.

CAVE PRISON - MORNING Wayne puts some scraps of bread into a rough coat which he folds into a makeshift shoulder pack.

PRISONER Supplies for your journey?

Prisoners nearby laugh.

From the picture one can assume that the folded brown packets are food items and the other is a water container.

So basically, he carried sustenance with him - food and water.

According to this copy of the script (p. 127): Wayne puts some scraps of bread into a rough coat which he folds into a makeshift shoulder pack.

As the other answers point out, he is packing supplies (bread).

But why does he only packs in his third attempt?

I think it's because only in this third attempt he was determined to escape and save Gotham

, this emphasizes that he was not in the right mind set before.

Question: Right before Bruce Wayne attempts to leave the pit he packs up something in a towel and wraps it around his body.    Does anyone see what he packs?

What does Bruce Wayne pack on his third attempt of leaving the pit in Dark Knight Rises?

He packs some vital essentials to stay alive like food and water.

When Bruce is packing up his stuff the doctor says the following to him. So it contains things vital to stay alive once he leaves the pit. He's assuming he'll escape,but he needs provisions to survive on the surface, as he doesn't know where he is.


One answer is that the watch was valuable (a Rolex Daytona Gold watch, value close to $20,000).

Presumably he perceived that he might need it to barter with, and indeed he uses it to pay off the boatman later in the film.

The other, more jaded answer, is product placement .

Swiss Watchmaker IWC made the watch that Jeremy Renner wears in the movie - the Pilot Watch Double Chronograph Edition Top Gun.

"IWC hopes that Mr. Renner’s portrayal of a thrill-seeking lifestyle of an elite agent will correlate to the brand image."

( Luxury Daily )

So if IWC has the starring role, who better than competitor Rolex to feature as a prop which is stolen and used for barter?

This is supposition on my part - I can find no article suggesting Rolex was involved in the placement, cannot imagine that they would want their brand used in this way, and am aware that companies rarely pay for a product placement if a competitor is also allowed to advertise in the film.

The watchophiles in both the IWC and Rolex camps are all over this movie in their forums!

The addition I'd make to the already good answers is that Aaron shows his need for timekeeping earlier in the film when he urgently asked for his watch back from Marta.

As well as the product placement I'd add in that Aaron uses his watch to know when to medicate (something he's clearly religious about to try and stave off reverting to his previous IQ).

Having a watch is an addiction

so he's always on time with his medication.

As the pair were attempting to escape the factory, the foreman ended up just in front of the them, so Aaron took advantage of (either knocking the foreman out, or killing him) to aid their escape and since he was down anyway, Aaron takes the watch knowing its value will probably be needed in the near future, as they are now both fugitives and on the run from the agency's operatives.

Shortly after that scene, Marta takes Aaron to a flophouse to wait through the sickness to come.

She had infected Aaron with the virus, to 'viral him out' of the dependance on blue pills.

He gets very sick.

She is nursing him, wiping the sweat off his soaked brow.

He struggles to sit up, even though she tells him to stay down.

Aaron sits up anyway.

He then tells Marta that he has $40,000 in the lining of his jacket, there are passports in his backpack, both the ones they used and blank, and that the watch from the foreman is worth (I could not hear if he says $2k or $20k) and that she should take it all and go disappear.

She has done enough for him.

The watch sales pitch is clearly in the scenes, but the story line is the fact that Aaron Cross is extremely conscious of keeping his chems on time.

Perhaps even taking more of the blue pills (which were intelligence enhancement) than he should.

Hence the story about losing his chems to the first contact.

He told the doctor how low his IQ was upon enlisting in the service and how adamant he was on not slipping back mentally.

He takes the watch mainly to continue evasion and mislead his pursuers.

It's to throw his pursuers off.

They don't want a watch thief they hear onlookers talking or even pointing in the direction he wast last

seen moving.

He's taking advantage of a situation.

Of course the value anywhere in the world to nearly any culture was a bonus if you will which wasn't missed by Cross- which the overly-edited down film (the deleted scenes explain a lot in general ) made a clever point of showing Aaron's use of with one quick shot of it on the wrist of its new owner.

He used the watch as an option for stakes if need be, which again what the person before me stated.

Obviously, you weren’t paying attention if you didn’t notice the trade that occurred after the last action motorcycle scene in which he offers the watch in exchange for a one way trip out of town.

The IWC is real nice but does not hold a candle to the craftsmanship of a Rolex Daytona, especially 18k.

The Rolex movement is made in house just like a Patek Phillipe, Audimar Paiguet, or a Breitling, unlike IWC which probably purchased its movement from ETA.

The pilfering of the watch is completely out of synch and illogical with what is going on in that scene (the act of knocking the security chief out) - also, the idea that Cross knocked the chief out and stole the watch to make it look like a mugging is interesting, but not realistic - the chief's own security crew responded to the chief going down, not local police, and to assume that the local police would know that the chief wore a Rolex and that, because it was missing when (if) they found him, that they would conclude he was knocked out for the watch, and not because the chief knew who Cross was and why he was really there, and ultimately 'move on and not recisitat, thereby slowing the investigation' is not realistic either.

The act of pilfering the watch is added to enable the Rolex product placement.

The start of the scene showing the Rolex on the captain's/father's wrist phasizes the watch way too much

Question: At one point during The Bourne Legacy Aaron Cross comes up behind an Austrailian security chief and knocks him unconscious. He then proceeds to take the man's watch, and then leaves the area. In this scene there are lots of people around, it isn't like he had time to mug him.   Why did he take the time to steal the watch?

Why did Aaron Cross take the watch from the security chief?

One answer is that the watch is a valuable Rolex Daytona Gold that costs near to $20,000. The other answer is that Aaron takes the watch knowing it's value will probably be needed in the near future.

IWC Pilot Watch Double Chronograph Edition Top Gun is worn by Jeremy Renner in the film. Rolex Daytona Gold watch, value close to $20,000, is used as a prop in the movie. IWC hopes "IWC hopes that Mr. Renner's portrayal of a thrill-seeking lifestyle of an elite agent will correlate to the brand image" . Therefore there is no article suggesting Rolex was involved in the placement, cannot imagine that they would want their brand used in this way.

As the pair were attempting to escape the factory, the foreman ended up just in front of the them, so Aaron took advantage of (either knocking out, or killing him) to aid their escape. Aaron takes the watch knowing its value will probably be needed in the near future,


They did not know what else was coming.

There could have been a huge alien about to come through which they could not have stopped

therefore they had to shut the portal as quickly as possible even if it meant sacrificing Stark

(who, btw, proved that he was the one to make the sacrifice play after all).

I always took it as protection of the city from the radioactive fallout of the nuke that just detonated on the other side.

Also, another explanation could be that no one was watching the troops since they were concentrating on the portal, so they didn't know at the time that they were all dead.

This was because of two reasons.

The Portal was still spewing oodles of Chitauri.

The Avengers did not know that destroying the mother ship would neutralize all the Chitauri.

That was a last resort to handle the Nuke.

Nowhere is it shown that Tony was aware of this neural link prior to him pushing the nuke through the wormhole.

This was their last action plan...

To nip it at the bud, so that they could take out the Chitauri still remaining in the city.

Their primary plan was to close the portal.

This is clear through several pieces of dialogue: Captain :

Alright, listen up.

Until we can close that portal up there, our priority is containment.

Then we have: Captain :

Thor, you've gotta try and bottleneck that portal.

And Also Black Widow :

Captain, none of this is gonna mean a damn thing if we don't close that portal.

To save Manhattan from the massive amount of fallout and debris falling through.

Manhattan would've suffered even more casualties had the tons of debris fallen through.

I understood it to be that they didn't know that sending the nuke through the portal would actually affect the Chitauri or even stop them as it did.

Therefore they only thought that closing the portal would make the difference.

Tony didn't know that when he flew the nuke through there and neither did Black Widow.

If the distance between the blast and the portal was small, then it could have come through, so it would have to be closed as soon as possible.

If the distance was large, then other Chitauri, not killed in the blast, could have come through.

Question: I'm a bit confused as to why they would be so quick to close the portal if all the Chitauri were powering down/dying? What's the big rush?  I think the only thing that could make sense would be the nuke blast coming through the portal, but the explosion seems way too far away to have done that?

In the Avengers movie, why did they close the portal?

They didn't know what else was coming. Therefore, they had to shut the portal as quickly as possibile even if that meant sacrificing Stark.

They did not know what else was coming.There could have been a huge alien about to come through which they could not have stopped. Therefore they had to shut the portal as quickly as possible even if it meant sacrificing Stark


Actually it's never stated that demons go back to hell when they die .

They do go back to hell when they're exorcised, and since yellow eyes was killed we haven't seen him except for flashbacks and such. Vampires and

pretty much all other monsters go to purgatory when they die.

It's never stated if angels go anywhere when they die, I believe they simply stop existing completely.

In season 8 we see Dean kill some vampires in purgatory, it's assumed that once you die in purgatory you stop existing.

Unknown .

This is similar to how we don't know where demons go, or where someone killed in Purgatory goes.

We know when they die they don't go back to heaven (which was obvious from the on-going war in heaven).

We know that beings can only go to Purgatory if they have a soul.

However, from The Man Who Would Be King : CASTIEL

You want to make a deal?

With me?

I'm an Angel, you ass.

I don't have a soul to sell.

So, they can't go to Purgatory.

Therefore, at the of sounding a little wishy-washy, the angels go somewhere , and God has the ability to bring them back .

Where that somewhere is, what the requirements are to get there, and how they get back, is a complete unknown.

It is never said where Angels go.

The same with Demons but all supernatural beings except for Ghosts go to Purgatory.

I'm pretty sure Ghosts go to Heaven or stop existing all together.

Now, when you kill something in Purgatory, I believe it just stops existing all together.

As introduced in season 11: They both (angels and demon) go to the empty .

The Empty is a void that existed before God or the Darkness.

It serves as an afterlife for angels and demons, where they sleep for eternity.

Source: https://supernatural.fandom.com/wiki/The_Empty

It's not clear yet.

Misha thinks they're just gone but there must be some kind of loophole (See here ).

I think God must have some control over it, as he brought Cas back.

Well, demons can't stop existing because Death said that souls can be twisted tossed and turned, but never broken, not even by him.

So souls can't be destroyed.

Demons have souls, they maybe corrupted, but they are still souls.

I think maybe they go to Purgatory when they die, because in Gods eyes they are probably monsters.

And monsters have poisoned souls, Eve put a monstrous virus in their body and soul.

And Leviathans have no souls, because they are older than souls (said so by death)

so I like to think that purgatory is the place of the soulless and corrupted soul.

God gave humans souls so that they can go somewhere after death.

So to go to heaven or hell when you die, you need a pure soul.

Now in this case pure doesn't mean good or righteous, it means not contaminated.

Demons have corrupted souls, so they go to purgatory.

God probably gave Angels grace, not only for power, but so they could go somewhere when they die besides purgatory.

They don't have souls, so god gave them grace to take them to a special place for angels.

I believe God made it so that when Angels take out their grace, or have it taken out, they gain as soul, so they go to heaven (or hell)

not purgatory.

So if Sam had died when he had no soul, he would have gone to purgatory.

Pretty sure Cas mentions they go to Purgatory, I could be wrong in which I apologise, but in 7x23 - 'Survival of the fittest' both Dean and Castiel go to Purgatory after killing Dick Roman and killing him killed them

did it not?

Well actually, when Dean and Castiel went to Purgatory, they didn't actually die.

It was just that when standing close enough to a Leviathan, you were sent to Purgatory along with it.

So technically, Dean and Castiel were actually ALIVE in Purgatory, never actually dying.

Also, if they did both die and go to Purgatory, it wouldn't work out, as Dean would either have to go to Heaven or Hell(being a human soul), and Castiel?

Well, the answer for where he goes is still uncertain.

Question: In the television series  Supernatural  it is said that upon death, demons go back to hell and vampires and other creatures go to purgatory. Where do angels go when they die?

Where do angels go upon death?

It's actually never stated that demons go back to hell when they die. They do go back to hell when they are exorcised whearas Vampires and other monsters go to purgatory when they die. It's never stated if angels go anywhere when they die.

It's never stated if angels go anywhere when they die, they simply stop existing completely.

Actually it's never stated that demons go back to hell  when they die. They do go back into hell when they're exorcised, and since yellow eyes was killed we haven't seen him. It's never stated if angels go anywhere when they die, I believe they simply stop existing completely.


There appears to be some debate over this (on IMDb boards and Rotten Tomatoes et al), but I found a Wikipedia snippet that suggests the following: Film scholar David Bordwell, writing in Film Viewer's Guide, mentioned the (un)reality of the ending as a topic for debate.

A number of scenes in the film — Rupert and Jerry in the restaurant, Jerry meeting Rupert after having listened to his tape and calling him a genius, Rupert getting married "live" on Jerry's show — exist solely in Rupert's imagination, and Bordwell suggested that some viewers would think the final sequence is another fantasy.

The background curtains, as stated above, look like prison bars.

In addition, he's wearing a very loud red suit consistent of what would be worn by someone in prison.

Finally, if you happen to look he positions his hands in what would normally be some form of a restraint position.

All this, in addition to the very weak material in his stand up would lead one to believe that he's imagining all of this from some from of Prison/Mental institution.

That's clearly Pupkin's imagination.

Think about all the times he was day dreaming, it was EXAGGERATED, a lot, and now read the last lines of the script (which, by the way, different from the original draft where it is clearly not day dreaming, here is instead not that obvious..), after stating that the biography has been sold for a million ( a million! ) dollars, and that a movies will be made on it soon, and that "he and his people were weighing attractive offers": And now, ladies and gentlemen the man we've all been waiting for, and waiting for .Would

you welcome home please television's brightest new star

The legendary, inspirational, the one and only king of comedy !

Ladies and gentlemen, Rupert Pupkin!

Rupert Pupkin, ladies and gentlemen!

Let's hear it for Rupert Pupkin!

Wonderful!

Rupert Pupkin, ladies and gentlemen!

Rupert Pupkin, ladies and gentlemen!

Let's hear it for Rupert Pupkin!

Wonderful !

Rupert Pupkin, ladies and gentlemen!

You get it..

This is no different from when, during the movie, his teacher is thanking him because.. he changed their lives.. :D

Having had this discussion many times, I am convinced it is a fantasy.

My primary reasoning is that, beyond the symbolism people have already pointed out, his end rise to "King" level doesn't really make that much rational sense.

The short prison sentence, the fact that somehow he would be even more popular 6 years later, and the fact that he is just given a show of his own are all incredibly extreme.

I believe the lack of Jerry in the final sequence is meant to show a change in his fantasy life.

He no longer needs Jerry to be a crutch for his fantasies, he can pour them all into himself.

Fantasy.

And here is my theory:Remember that every scene in Rupert's imagination is outweighed by scenes in Rupert's reality.

Now, think of it like this: Rupert's fantasy = positive life situation.

Rupert's reality = negative life situation.

The movie follows a certain pattern of balance, it follows a shift of positive fantasy and negative reality.

For every negative situations in his reality, it had to be balanced by the same amount of positive situations in his fantasy.

For example, he got his tape rejected by Jerry (negative reality), next scene shows Jerry praising him (positive fantasy).

We find another example at the end of the movie:

Rupert goes to jail (very negative reality).

If the movie follows this pattern then the last scene with Rupert's success, a very positive situation, has to be fantasy.

I think the ending is a fantasy by the sheer magnitude of the reception he receives in the end...which is consistent in regard to viewing himself as the KING...

When Rupert is being introduced during the end scene the curtains in the background resemble prison bars, quite a strong hint towards reality or fantasy.

The point is there is evidence to both sides of the argument, it's up to the viewer to make a decision depending on their interpretation of the film.

That's what the director has intended to do.

Question: In the final scene of Martin Scorsese's 'King of Comedy' a news report suggests that Rupert Pupkin (played by Robert De Niro), after coming out of prison, becomes a sensation and releases his much awaited autobiography. At the same time he is shown to be holding various offers for shows.  Is it possible that he would have imagined this bit too like his previous conversations and stage shows with Jerry Langford? Is there any suggestive evidence leading to reality or otherwise?

Was the success of Rupert Pupkin real in King of Comedy?

It is up to the viewer to make a decision based on their interpretation of the film. When Rupert is being introduced in the end of the film the curtains in the background resemble prison bars which hint towards reallity and fantasy but it is clearly Pupkin's imagination.

When Rupert is being introduced during the end scene the curtains in the background resemble prison bars, quite a strong hint towards reality or fantasy. That's what the director has intended to do, that's clearly Pupkin's imagination.


When Anderson releases the computer hacker guy and lets him walk free.

Dredd tells her that releasing a felon is not only a fail but a criminal offense.

Anderson explains that she has already failed because she lost her side arm (an automatic failure).

She says "I'm not going to be a judge

and I don't need to be a mind reader to know it

" implying that she knew the outcome of her assessment without having to read Dredd's mind.

So technically she did fail, and fail multiple times.

I think Dredd passes Anderson on grounds that she represents what the judges need.

A person who wants to make a difference.

There are a couple of spots in the film where Anderson demonstrates why she wanted to become a judge.

When they first enter Peach Tree.

Dredd makes comments about how crime infested the building is (going as far as to cite statistics).

Anderson shuts him up by telling him she was raised in one of these blocks.

When asked why she wanted to become a judge, Anderson responds "Yes, I believe I can make a difference".

Dredd responds with "admirable" implying a sense of hopelessness to her goals.

In the scene where she releases the computer hacker.

She says that "I'm still a judge, and I'll still dispense justice.

At least while I can maybe I'll make a difference".

This is also the only time in the film where you see Dredd smile (or as close to smiling as he can).

The corrupt four judges that Ma-ma calls in to have Dredd killed represent that current state of corruption in the system.

One of the judges says to Dredd that "the city is a meat grinder".

Implying that the law is hopeless and a lost cause.

Anderson doesn't read minds constantly.

It's an action she has to willingly perform.

When Dredd and Anderson are discussing what to do when they discover that Ma-ma is the king-pin for the slow-mo drug cartel in the city.

Dredd says "You gave us two options.

Defend or hide.

What about we attack?

Head straight for Ma-ma".

Anderson says "Is that an option?"

Dredd replies "

Well she's guilty.

We're judges."

Anderson says worriedly, "sir, I think we should wait for backup".

Dredd just frowns.

Anderson continues "Wrong answer?"

Dredd answers "You're the psychic.

" From this it is clear that Anderson only reads minds when she needs to, otherwise she would have said to go after Ma-ma in the first place.

So to summarize:

Dredd knew she failed multiple times.

Anderson knew she failed, and that's why she gave him her badge.

Dredd passed Anderson anyway cause he saw hope that she might make a difference.

Chief Judge says "I knew she would" because she saw it too.

Actually, my take on it was that while she acknowledged she technically failed, she ultimately turned in her badge because she couldn't handle the questionable ethics and the emotional intensity of the job.

Case in point: she executes one of the Ma-Ma clan members who was begging for his life, then later discovers he was the husband and father of a Peach Trees block wife and kid.

When she releases the hacker, she also says "I'm not going to be a Judge

and I don't have to be a mind reader to

know it."

She goes on, "

He's a victim not a perp and until my assessment is formally over

I'm still entitled to dispense justice

and that's what I just did, by letting him go.

Maybe that will be the one difference I do make.

The code to Ma-Ma's chambers is 49436.

Let's finish this.

I don't think it gets any clearer than this as to why she turned in her badge.

A Judge must be strict, no mercy, the law is black and white, but because she's a psychic she sees the grey areas.

"Let's finish this" is another reflection of her realization that she is not cut out for the harsh code of being a Judge.

Her spirit is too kind.

At the end, when Dredd says, "Your assessment is now over."

This is far from an answer on whether she passed or failed

and she knows it.

The fact that she didn't even wait for the official answer suggests that she had already made up her mind.

I think when he said she passed, he actually meant she passed up being a judge.

But it ended too early to determine if he literally passed her or if it was a figure of speech.

Obviously she passed and becomes a judge.

The last scene of the movie is a silhouette (or back lit) view of Anderson in her Judge uniform ...

at least this is what it appeared to be to me.

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.

She's a Psychic, the sidearm isn't her primary weapon, her brain is.

So the loss of her brain, or having it taken from her is a fail, the gun is just another tool to her, but she'd have failed if she lost the psychic duel with Kay.

With the judgment call on the hacker being a victim, whilst unusual for a judge to be lenient, given her psychic powers she's far more likely to assess a victim correctly than a regular judge,

additionally she could just as easily pick up on a perp playing the victim.

And we see leniency from Dredd himself with the vagrant at the beginning.

So at no point did she actually fail, she merely judged herself along the same lines as Dredd, which was silly, cos hey, psychic.

Question: 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?

Did Anderson actually pass?

She didn't actually fail, she merely judged herself along the same lines as Dredd.

She's a Psychic, the sidearm isn't her primary weapon, her brain is. So the loss of her brain, or having it taken from her is a fail, the gun is just another tool to her. With the judgment call on the hacker being a victim, whilst unusual for a judge to be lenient, given her psychic powers she's far more likely to assess a victim correctly than a regular judge.


From an interview with Christopher Nolan: I don't really know where that came from...

He actually had a sort of prosthetic appliance for the scars that wrapped over his lower lips, and the first couple of scenes where he was playing it that way, I actually had thought it was a mistake...

I thought the prosthetic was coming loose on the bottom lip

and he was sticking it down with his tongue or something.

And it was only after we shot a couple of scenes I realized

oh no this is a thing he's found

, this is a sort of...

I think it's a lizard like... or serpent like elemental kind of gesture..

and I think it works...

I think it's very creepy...

[ Click here to listen to Nolan

talk about Ledger's creepy lip-smacking]

The Joker in

The Dark Knight had a Glasgow smile .

There would have been scars on the insides of his cheeks as well as on the outsides.

I thought Heath Ledger was acting out the behavior of someone who had never gotten used to their presence, and was constantly poking and worrying at them with his tongue, especially right at the corners of his mouth.

It was actually an honest bad habit of Ledger's.

He would often lick his lips and it fit in with the character.

The joker is symbolically described as a dog in the film and there is many references.

He is a self proclaimed "dog chasing cars"

He is the unloyal hungry dog as compared to Chechen, the Russian's, pets/protection

There is a scene where he is hanging out the window of a GCPD patrol cruiser and licking his lips as wind blows his hair much like a dog would.

He is often seen licking his lips.

But, it began as just Heath's bad habit and personality

The symbolism is he is an animal that can play tame

but, much, like a pitbull, he is raw power and wilderness.

Several options come to mind.

It maybe a feature of a maniac antisocial.

Maniacs have several sorts of behavioral uniqueness.

It might be Joker's uniqueness.

It maybe an approach like a reptile.

Like they do this tongue-work before leaping into a prey, this behavior might indicate Jokers saurian satanic thought process.

Like incognito said it might be due to the irritation on his skin caused by his makeup.

Might be he does it, when he becomes nervous.

A discrete feature proving he is crazy!

A movie clip came out a few days ago talking about the joker in the movie, and it is explained why he kept licking his lips.

As we can see in the video below:

At first it was a make-up problem, that when Heath was speaking the prothestics became loosened.

So because Heath didn't want to keep gluing the make up to his lips over and over again, he started licking the lips, and then that became part of the character.

My opinion is -Joker wore paint on his face so this might be causing dryness and hence the constant licking

Question: Throughout The Dark Knight, the Joker licks his lips when in conversation.  Why does the Joker do this?  Is this a psychological affect commonly observed in sociopaths or people with mental imbalances (or however you'd choose to describe the Joker)?  Or is this merely a product of Heath Ledger's portrayal? If this is the case,  what was his motivation to do so?

Why did the Joker lick his lips?

I thought that it was a mistake and only realized he was playing the character that way a couple of shots in.

And it was only after we shot a couple of scenes I realized

He actually had a sort of prosthetic appliance for the scars that wrapped over his lower lips, and the first couple of scenes where he was playing it that way, I actually had thought it was a mistake. I thought the prosthetic was coming loose on the bottom lip


Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige said in November 2012: Iron Man 3 doesn't feature any of the other Avengers , or Nick Fury showing up, or any of those world-blending conceits that the Phase One films had.

You have to keep in mind that Iron Man 3 had been in the works for almost a year, year and a half before The Avengers was released.

We're sticking to the vision for these films, and showing once again that these characters are just as interesting alone as they are together.

There was a rumour that actress Stephanie Szostak was playing Janet van Dyne (Wasp) (she is a founding member of the Avengers in the comics) .

According to Joss Whedon early drafts of The Avengers included Janet van Dyne

Yes - if you wait right until the very end of the credits, there's a sequence involving Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner.

It's just a little joke though and not part of the main plot.

Otherwise, no other Avengers appear.

Samuel L. Jackson said none of the Avengers are gonna be in Iron Man 3.

Here is a source: http://www.whogottherole.com/movie-news/nick-fury-wont-be-needed-in-iron-man-3-24324

The answer is no.

There is no new avengers in Iron Man 3.

Rumors about Stephanie Szostak playing Janet van Dyne (Wasp) proved wrong.

She is playing Ellen Brandt not completely like her comics part

and she is given with Extremis virus.

Which made her powerful villain not an Avenger.

If Ellen Brandt survived somehow(shown killed) then she can be used in Marvel Universe for her connection to Man-Thing and Dr Strange but that's all rumor at the moment.

For now there is no new Avenger in it.

Bruce Banner's appearance is there after credit

but he is not the part of the main story.

I just returned from the showing.

There are no Avengers in the film, but hang around until after the credits if you really want to see another member of the team...

The cast listed on IMDb doesn't have any members of the Avengers listed.

No Avengers who were Avengers at the time.

However, War Machine/Rhodey does feature prominently.

He joins the Avengers in the second recruitment at the end of Age of Ultron.

Question: Are any of the other Avengers going to be in Iron Man 3? Or is he flying solo?

Does Iron Man 3 have any other Avengers in it?

No, for now there is no new avenger in Iron Man 3. Bruce Banner's  appearance is there after the credits but he Is not part of the main sotry.

The answer is no. There is no new avengers in Iron Man 3. Rumors about Stephanie Szostak playing Janet van Dyne were wrong. She is playing Ellen Brandt not completely like her comics part and she is given with Extremis  virus.  Which made her powerful villain not an Avenger.


There are some interesting references to paper, origami, cards, etc.

in House of Cards.

Perhaps for Claire, it's a reference to two things - one being her suppressed creativity and how that ties in to her longing for Adam.

We don't know that much about her past, except that which has been revealed through her conversations with Adam.

We also learn a little about her choices when she sat by Steve's bedside as she discusses the conscious decision she made to be with Frank, not necessarily for love, but for the respect and freedom he would give her.

Ironically, though Claire is not locked into a life of being the trophy wife, she is seemingly trapped in a marriage of partnership and reason.

Adam (and the origami) represent freedom, art, and impermanence.

All that which she does not possess.

The second reference may be to the constant folding and unfolding of events in her life.

As close as she may be to Frank, he is still able to use her as a pawn to further his own goals.

She makes decisive efforts to curtail this when she sabotages the water bill.

Paper is temporary; it does not provide real shelter, as was mentioned by one of the workers at the shipyard meeting Peter Russo held.

Nor does it protect us from the elements.

It can all collapse in a moment, just as a structure made of cards will do.

Money, made of paper, can be easily burned, destroyed or lost.

His kids also do origami - a foreshadowing of the two tiny victims who will pay a huge price for Frank's lust for power.

The homeless guy took a bill - a physical representation of what our society deems to be worth something, folded it, and turned it into a piece of art for Claire.

It wasn't a small amount for a homeless person - it was $20!

A blatant reminder that those things which are valuable to some, may mean nothing to others.

It was an eerie reminder that her life and everything she values can quickly fall apart.

Lastly, Frank in his speech when he was honored at his alma mater talks about harmony, and how "it is not about what's lasting or permanent,

it's about individual voices coming together for a moment.

" This is so contradictory to everything Frank truly stands for.

The reality is, he backstabs, manipulates, and deceives everyone around him, especially those who are near him.

The only one he does not deceive is Stamper (which should be discussed on a separate thread as that is an interesting theme as well) Frank is fully driven by the hunger to establish legacy, permanence, and power - basically the opposite of what origami represents.

I would love to hear more feedback from others

- I think this is a really interesting concept and there is so much room to dig deeper.

Another aspect to origami is that it requires precise, painstaking execution, which seems to come naturally to Claire.

Like origami, she is beautiful, complicated, and controlled; given the way the plot unfolds, she may be crushable.

Also, the folds and doubling-back suggests to me complexity and double-dealing.

I find her very intriguing.

Although I am associating the origami with negative connotations, I started liking her when she took up the origami, and found myself falling under her sway.

DRJ

It's a stork.

I think it foreshadows her interest in having kids.

Note that she exchanges it with Russo's kids, whom she dreams about just before she shows overt interest in pregnancy.

Coming late to HoC party, but very intrigued by the paper references.

I think it can also extend into the newspapers as well.

Their impermanence and the digital forms of information that now are of so much weight and importance.

The significance of the origami is far reaching.

It represents a childlike whimsicalness, referring to Peter's children and to Claire's missed opportunity at motherhood.

It is the transformation of a flat piece of ordinary paper into a beautiful unique hand made 3 dimensional art object.

With the same generic piece of paper, you can imagine anything and create it from almost nothing.

It is a swan that the homeless man creates for Claire.

Not a crane.

Swans are often folded for weddings.

The folds allow for patterns on a piece of paper to be incorporated as the illusion of feathers ( as is shown in the folds of the US $20 bill).

Swans mate for life.

Swans also signify a journey or that a is change coming.

For better and worse Cliare is married to Frank for life.

She is on a journey with him and change is always afoot.

When Claire leaves Adam in New York, she rearranges the photograph he has printed for her.

Again the impermanence of paper, who prints photos anymore and who prints them that large?

More paper falling by the wayside.

She also folds a swan and leaves this for Adam showing her allegiance to Frank.

I think it may also be a representation of Claire herself.

Paper on it's own is blank and undefined but once folded and manipulated it can serve a purpose as with the origami.

After the photo Claire takes of the girl is first printed Adam keeps projecting what he sees onto the image, wanting to name her Claire indicating that he sees her this way.

Claire before leaving however, rearranges the photo into how she sees herself.

A tightly controlled image surrounded by obscure and indiscernible border.

I do believe it to be an allusion to the meeting of Diogenes of Sinope and Alexander the Great which is one of the most well-discussed anecdotes from philosophical history.

Many versions of it exist.

The most popular relate it as evidence of Diogenes' disregard for honor, wealth, and respect.

Alexander says to Diogenes "tell me what you want and I will grant it".

Diogenes looks at the great man, who is standing right in front of him. "

Grant me anything?

Then move to one side as you are blocking my sun!"

Question: In the 6th episode of House of Cards, we see Claire have some sympathy towards a vagrant outside of her work and gives this man $20 to get some food from a deli close by    The next day, the man is still there and then flicks back the $20, now in the shape of an origami crane.   What is the purpose of this scene, and what does the Crane represent given the current events in Claire's life?

What is the significance of the Origami Bum?

It may also be a representation of Claire herself. Claire takes a photo of a girl and Adam imagines her image as a representation of her. After the photo is first printed Adam keeps projecting what he sees onto the image. Claire rearranges the photo into how she sees herself before leaving.


While Kevin Howell is quite spot-on in his explanation of the upside down flag representing distress, I think especially his link to the Flag Code gives another, maybe even better fitting explanation.

The country itself is objectively seen not in distress during the course of the show.

So while the upside down flag could represent some kind of metaphorical distress in the way that the government and the political system are depicted, what may better fit here is the other, albeit invalid, reason for an upside-down flag, disrespect .

By showing the flag upside-down without an imminent presence of "dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property" it shows disrespect to the flag and the political ideals (and ultimately the country and its people) it stands for.

Of course, I'm neither saying the show or its makers are disrespecting the U.S. flag nor am I making any personal judgement about such behaviour, just that the characters and the way politics are shown have lost the ideals that flag was once supposed to represent.

This disrespect is shown by the political schemes and plots that (not only, but most prominently) Frank Underwood plays with the governmental forces (and ultimately the country) in order to feed his own lust for power.

The show depicts a political system and moral that have been (in/per)verted upside-down in the same way as the flag that represents them.

The missing stars could either be just some kind of stylization, but could as well refer to something deeper.

One might interpret that into the same disrespect symbolization as the upside-down part, but could maybe also come up with something based on the fact that the stars represent the states.

Maybe this way it shows that the show isn't about actual politics with any significance to the whole country, but about a man not interested into anything outside of Washington D.C. and misusing the country's fate only as a device for his own goals.

A flag being flown upside down is a symbol for distress .

As far as the no stars I'm looking into that.

No stars may mean that there is no democracy here - no votes are ever cast by states for Underwood (excepting a small portion of South Carolina).

I think the graphic was also meant to draw attention to the show in general.

It certainly makes one curious.

I wonder if the lack of stars symbolizes the power of the federal government over constituent states.

No stars = likely simply a graphic design aesthetic choice.

A logo doesn't have to be a literal representation.

It's clearly the american flag, even without the stars, and the stars would simply be too small to render well on a lot of screens.

I believe it also stands for a "false flag event.

" Something fake used to bring about war for gaining political, monetary and a general increase in over all power.

Question: The logo for Netflix's  House of Cards  shows an upside-down & mirrored American Flag with 0 stars on it.  What does this logo represent in terms of the show?  Is it meant to be symbolism with the themes of the show, or just simple dramatic flair?

What does the Flag symbolize?

Seeing as the stars represent the states the missing stars could mean  that the show isn't about actual politics, but about a man not interested in anything outside of Washington D.C. It could also simply be an aesthetic choice.

No stars means likely simply a graphic design aesthetic choice. Stars would simply be too small to render well on a lot of screens.

The missing stars could either be just some kind of stylization, but could as well refer to something deeper. Maybe this way it shows that the show isn't about actual politics with any significance to the whole country, but about a man not interested into anything outside of Washington D.C.


The cabbie is indeed shown to be terminally ill and wants to raise money for his family.

However, this only explains why he resorts to killing people (=earn money fast).

Motives of Moriarty are part of the bigger overall story arc in the Sherlock Holmes universe as Moriarty is the arch-nemesis of Sherlock.

The poison pill trick is not random.

The cabbie is skilled in reading and manipulating people.

He has analyzed what drives his victims and acts accordingly.

He knew Sherlock would get in his cab instead of calling the police.

The poison pill trick is his way of showing he has control through his skill.

His victims can make the choice but as they are choosing, the cabbie manipulates them.

He knows which of the bottles is poisonous and will manipulate his victims into taking the bad bottle.

If they take the good one, he will convince them to change their mind.

This shows of how good the cabbie is in reading people, predicting their train of thought and knowing what to say to mislead them.

It takes great skill to manipulate people that know you are trying to kill them.

His confrontation with Sherlock is a battle in the understanding of human behavior.

It is a match to decide who can better see through the other's act.

They have layers and layers of bluff/misdirection in all the small details of their actions.

The killer was terminally ill with a brain aneurism and could die at any moment.

He was using the 'scheme' to raise money.

He was earning money from Moriarty, who was essentially sponsoring the cabbie to murder people in this manner.

Moriarty's motive is unclear, perhaps just to cause chaos, but more likely to get his name in front of Sherlock.

Essentially the cabbie had nothing to lose - so it was purely random which pill was poison.

On each occasion he had a 50% chance of winning.

As the only repeat player, the odds are that he would die within a few rounds, but a fairly good chance he would kill one or two in the process - raising money for his family.

He viewed himself as being expendable, likely to die at any moment anyway - an intelligent man, he viewed it as a risk worth taking.

[Alternative (not very serious theory): Perhaps he has built up an immunity to Iocaine powder ?]

There's another explanation although without evidence of course.

Neither of the pills were poisonous.

The poison was in a glass of water he would offer the victims to wash it down with.

He'd dry swallow the pill.

In my opinion it's one of the better answers.

However everything is entirely speculation so it could easily be wrong.

Both pills have poison.

You see

but you do not observe!

The cabbie opens the bottle and holds the pill in his left hand.

He talks and distracts Holmes.

Just before he is shot you see him with a pill in his right hand.

He had a second, non-poison pill, all the time.

He did this with all the victims.

None had a chance, the game was rigged.

At time 1:19:36 the pill is in his left hand.

At time 1:19:54 the pill is in his right hand.

Could be the pills are his meds.

If he takes them it does nothing (they're prescribed for a reason), but when someone else takes them they die.

I heard my favorite theory on tumblr and expanded on it.

Neither pill was poison, and the water he gave them was.

He swallowed his dry.

This explanation has no evidence in the episode to support it, but it still fits the events and I like it a lot.

One problem that I noticed is that there is no water in the final scene where they are both about to take the pills.

One way to explain this is that the cabbie's sponsor Moriarty (who has been described as a 'fan' of Sherlock) did not want Sherlock dead.

If neither of them used poison water then neither one would die.

Presumably, the cabbie would fake his own death, let Sherlock think he had chosen right, and then who knows?

This is covered in the episode, Holmes mentions it to the cabbie and the cabbie replies something like:

Four games and four wins, that's not random

If you want an excellent, explained example of this in

action - watch

The Princess Bride: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0

The man in black's intelligence test.

He provides two vials, one of which is poisoned.

Vizzini explains his chain of thought thus expressing how he feels that the placement of the poisons is not random but is a psychological trick.

In the same way the taxi driver feels that there is psychology in the way he plays his 'game' and that it is not random - whether either if them are right or wrong is not the point, the point is that they feel there is more to it than random chance

Note: the twist in the Princess Bride's version about immunities is not relevant to the Holmes's version.

I only included this as it explained the chain of thought as to which glass should be drunk from.

Question: In  Sherlock season 1 episode 1  the serial killer asks Sherlock to take one of two bottles. 1 bottle is ok other is bad (poisonous). Whatever bottle Sherlock takes the serial killer takes the other one. That is same way the serial killer murdered his other victims.   But the episode doesn't say  how exactly serial killer achieved this. Before Sherlock can take one of the bottles the serial killer is murdered.   Does anybody know how the serial killer achieved this?

In Sherlock: Study in Pink how does the choice of bottles work?

There is another explination although without evidence of course.Neither of the pills were poisonous. The posison was in a glass of water he would offer the victims to wash it down wih.

There's another explanation although without evidence, of course. Neither of the pills were poisonous. The poison was in a glass of water he would offer the victims to wash it down with. However everything is entirely speculation so it could easily be wrong.