No, Lucy didn't travel in time (although, it was my first thought as well), nor did her mind re-enact those events.

She remembered them.

Throughout the film, professor Norman explains how the purpose of life is to pass on the knowledge through time.

From the first cell, its splitting in two, and on to the more complicated life forms, the purpose is always passing the information.

Also, among the first changes that Lucy experiences is her remembering her own early life (the cat that she had when she was one, her mother's milk,...) which she reveals in her phone conversation with her mother.

Later on, that remembrance then spurs to the earlier events (her own growth of bones).

The "time travelling sequence" that we see is the process of all life since its beginning, in reverse.

It does not end with the Big Bang.

It ends with many cells connecting (back) until there is one left, which was the first cell ever.

The whole sequence is Lucy remembering all the knowledge that was passed from that first cell all the way to her today's cells, and conveniently saving it in some form on a computer.

Addendum:

It was noted in the comments that she had some interactions with history's beings (Indians, dinosaurs, human ancestors,...) and that we see her in those interactions, not her own ancestors.

The way I see it is: The memories are someone's.

They acknowledged that person, not Lucy.

We see her because she's remembering it.

I think it would've been too confusing if in each of those short interaction scenes we saw the actual ancestor, and the fact that no one seemed alarmed by her sudden appearance (which would be a necessity if she time-travelled) makes me more certain that those humans and animals interact with someone who was naturally there.

My take on it was that she could exist at all points in time.

She transcended that as she had transcended other things in the movie.

So she was actually moving through time, going wherever and whenever she wanted (including going through a black hole and to the "other side" where it connected with a quasar.

At least I think that's what that was supposed to symbolize, and that visual has stuck with me).

So she did in fact travel with her body and consciousness through time, and she did nearly touch the first protohuman Lucy's finger like God and Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

(I have no direct proof for this, like a quote from the writer or director.

I'm basing it on everything that happened in the rest of the movie.

She transcended the physical world, so next she'd transcend the temporal world.)

An illustrator from ILM who worked on the scene talked about his discussions with Besson where Lucy "would be travelling back through time until the moment of the Big Bang" in this article .

So it appears that was the intent.

That being said, I think the genetic memories concept makes a lot more sense when you look at the actual images in the scene and all the apparent nods to that theory throughout the earlier film.

The thing that seems to oppose the time travel idea by far

I think is what was mentioned already about the last scene being the 1st cell splitting, not a big bang.

Unless of course the idea was that the 1st cell dividing was actually the Big Bang, and our whole universe was created from that, or some other Men in Blacky type stuff.

Reff: Lucy (2014) :

Explained

I don't think she's traveling through time.

Once all the CPH4 goes in, her brain nears 90% utilization.

As Lucy's brain function elevates further and further, she is able to tap into and use all forms of energy around her.

She can look into the past or the stars and galaxy because they are all forms of light energy that she can access.

(eg:

The reflection of yourself in a mirror is you looking at the past because light takes finite time to travel from you to the mirror and back to your eyes)

I don't think she travelled back in time.

I understand that the Native Americans seemed to have seen her, and the dinosaur certainly did.

But primate-Lucy, she didn't live in North America.

Primate-Lucy lived in Ethiopia.

If Omnipotent-Lucy time travelled, how is it possible

she saw P-Lucy in to-be New York.

Native Americans obviously lived in North America, and Lucy lived in Ethiopa.

They could not have possibly lived in the same area at different times.

Omnipotent-Lucy had to have remembered them.

Question: When Morgan Freeman pushed the 3 remaining bags of the CPH4 drug into Lucy, we saw her traveling through time (some steps of history from current world to big bang). Some of those events where witnessed by Lucy.  Did Lucy imagine those scenes or was she actually time-traveling? Because Lucy was back in the chair when Mr. Jang proceeded to shoot her. Did her mind experience the events or her mind just enacted those historical events as scientists give them by inference / resolution?

Did Lucy travel time or was her mind imagining / portraying the views?

No, Lucy didn't travel in time, nor did her mind re-enact those events. She remembered them.

Lucy didn't travel in time, nor did her mind re-enact those events. Throughout the film, professor Norman explains how the purpose of life is to pass on the knowledge through time.


According to this article from Creative Planet Network

"We have the technology, and our animators have the skills to do 3-D," says supervising producer Anne Garefino .

"We don't want it to look computery,"agrees director of animation Eric Stough , who's been on board since the pilot.

"We want it to look as crappy as possible."

They do use 3D animation software.

However, from the beginning the cut-out paper look is what they wanted to achieve with CG after finding out the difficulties of using real paper cut-outs.

The decision to stay with the paper cut-out look was made from the beginning, they want everything to look as cartoonish as possible, down to the movements and appearance of the characters.

It also adds to the branding, one can immediately recognize a show of South Park by its looks.

More information

The show's style of animation is inspired by the paper cut-out cartoons made by Terry Gilliam for Monty Python's Flying Circus , of which Parker and Stone have been lifelong fans.

After the pilot for subsequent episodes have been produced by computer animation, providing a similar look to the originals while requiring a fraction of the time to produce.

Beginning with season five, the animators began using Maya instead of PowerAnimator.

The studio now runs a 120-processor render farm that can produce 30 or more shots an hour.

PowerAnimator and Maya are high-end programs mainly used for 3D computer graphics, while co-producer and former animation director, Eric Stough, notes that PowerAnimator was initially chosen because its features helped animators retain the show's "homemade" look.

On a different note, many times the creators do not want to opt for the latest technology for their movies or shows.

This could be based on personal like and dislike

and yes it is an artistic decision as mentioned correctly by Bobby Alexander in his comment.

A similar incident worth noting is Chris Nolan's choice of not shooting Dark Knight Rises in 3D at a time when almost everyone else was doing it.

Wikipedia says that Nolan elected not to film in 3-D, but instead stated that he intended to focus on improving image quality and scale using the IMAX format

So while South Park does use some of the latest technology, its current look and feel depends upon the creators' artistic decision.

Would 3-D animation make the content any better?

George Lucas took advantage of the latest special effects available to film with the prequel trilogy which many fans say don't hold a candle to the original.

When he "remastered" the original trilogy with special editions, many fans revolted.

Look at video games, some of the most critically acclaimed games have simple animations and graphics (Minecraft, Fez, etc.), while there are countless graphic powerhouse games that are commercial and critical failures.

South Park is funny because of the content.

The barebones animation is a signature of the series.

Why change it?

Also due to branding you don't want to change something that works.

The show is a screaming success.

Changing it might run the path when Coke introduced New Coke and failed miserably

The quote I like best, referring to the software used to make South Park: "(using this 3D software) is basically building a sandcastle with a bulldozer".

That's the whole reason they use the software; to remain topical (episodes finished in a week, handed into Comedy Central on the Wednesday itself, ie tonight's episode wasn't submitted when you woke this morning!)

because they aren't bogged down with Michael Bay-ism.

Question: The technology has greatly improved since  South Park 's pilot episode, why has the style of the show not been changed?

Why are the Latest Episodes of South Park not in 3D animation?

The decision to keep the paper cut-out look was a choice made from the beginning they want everything to look as cartoonsh as possibile and one can immediately recognize South Park by it's look.

The decision to stay with the paper cut-out look was made from the beginning, they want everything to look as cartoonish as possible. One can immediately recognize a show of South Park by its looks. They do use 3D animation software.


He's a Science teacher.

He understands the effects of Meth and knows how addictive it is.

Besides, he was in it to make money.

Never combine business with pleasure if you want to be successful.

Just as Frank Lopez warns Tony Montana in Scarface, "Don't get high on your own supply".

The series was not really so much about drug use, and if Walter had been a tweaker then it presumably would have had to have been more so.

Also, it would have overshadowed some of the ambiguities and nuances of his character; getting high would in fact have been a good explanation for some of his behaviour but having such an easy explanation would have made it less thought provoking.

I don't, as other people have said, think it has anything to do with Walter's personality.

He could just as easily have been using without changing the plot (I think what is in keeping with his personality would be that he would conceal his use from others), but again, the focus of the story would then be a drug user and the series was not about drug users; making it more so would have diluted other elements.

There are really surprisingly few scenes of users using considering the length of the series; much of that is just Jessie getting stoned on weed -- and even more than that, just Jesse sitting smoking a cigarette.

Most of the criminal characters aren't users and show some disdain for them.

In a way, drugs are totally tangential to the plot; they just happen to be a source of income for organized crime, which is the focus of Breaking Bad, as per Vince Gilligan's famous quote about how he wanted to take Mr. Chips and transform him into Scarface.

Of course the meth thing is very sexy; although the plot could as easily revolved around smuggling guns or diamonds, having someone actually making drugs on TV was a bit more original and interesting.

But the show was still not about drug use, it was about criminality and violence.

Walter never wanted to be addicted to the stuff he was making.

He was already sick because of cancer and doing drugs could worsen his health and as Johnny explains in his answer that being Chemistry wiz

he knew the ill effects.

He wanted to be alive and awake all the time so that he could take clever decisions and complete his job no matter how difficult it was, be it packing & transferring meth, or killing someone.

It would have been difficult for him to manage everything he was doing and lying to people would have been difficult for him.

He also had to return to his home every night and sit with his family plus his brother in law was in the DEA and maybe he could sniff meth because that was everything he looked for.

Maybe he also felt mature to do stuff like this

and he also had kids whom he never wanted to influence.

Walter is "in the business of building empires.

" There is a clear cultural separation where if you want to be in the business and earn the respect of people like Gus, you need to be firmly above the product.

I think talking about the effects of meth, etc.

dilutes this point.

Walter isn't tempted at all; that would violate his vision of himself, and his goals.

Yes, Jesse, in particular his relationship with Walter, is very complicated because Jesse uses

but it otherwise nearly as talented as Walter.

I agree with the above stated answers that Walt didn't want to become addicted, needed to stay focused, etc.

But I feel the biggest reason was his pride.

I think he felt he was always better than those crank addicted junkies.

This is evidenced on how he talked down to Jessie.

Walt was a scientist "for chrissake!"

and he wanted everyone to know this was business, he wasn't a junkie.

But it was his pride too

that got the better of him, turning him darker in the guise of him helping his family.

He was actually becoming the scum he hated, and Jessie was becoming the concienscious person Walt pretended Walt

was all along.

Question: Why didn't Walter White ever consume his own product in  Breaking Bad ? I mean he did once consume cannabis, is this because of work ethics or any alternate views?

Why didn't Walter White consume his own product?

Firstly, Walter never wanted to be addicted to his own product. Secondly he was already diagnosed with cancer and doing drugs would worsen his health. Also, he needed to be alert whilst transferring meth and to make clever decisions

Walter was never interested in the things he did. He was already sick with cancer, and drugs could make his health worse. All that he had done would have been difficult for him to manage. Perhaps it also felt mature in doing such things, because his lawyer was in the DEA, and perhaps he was able to sniff Meth. He had children whom he would never influence.


The only way Murph could know is when that information came from Brand herself.

Therefore we must assume that the quantum data Cooper send to Earth/Murph was also able to fix the one-directional communication problem through the worm hole.

Well, you might also ask, how did Murph know Dr. Brand has reached the new planet at all.

I guess Dr. Brand must have sent a message from the new planet, which informed others that she was there

and she was alone.

There might have been plans to reach out to her soon, only that Cooper could wait no longer

and he immediately sets off for her.

I think the more straightforward answer is that: Cooper had 2 weeks before he got to see Murph again, after being rescued and having recovered.

In those 2 weeks he would have relayed their entire mission to NASA and told them exactly what had happened and how Amelia was heading to Edmunds' planet to execute Plan B.

When Cooper, Romilly and Amelia were voting on going to Mann's or Edmunds' planet, they knew that Edmunds' wasn't transmitting anymore, so they knew that there was a possibility that he might be dead or in hibernation.

When Murph is telling Cooper to go to Edmunds' planet for Amelia, she says, "Maybe right now she's setting in for a long nap.." -

which implies that they don't have a word from Amelia Brand yet and the one directional communication might not have been fixed after all.

So this is all conjecture.

I had to think about this too; your going to kick yourself because it is so glaringly obvious :) 91 years have passed since Cooper left.

There was no time dilation on Edmund's planet.

Edmund is dead if not by accident then by old age.

She was not "informed" that Edmund died, it is just obvious because no one can live that long.

Of course she cannot be 100% sure about Edmonds's death, but you can easily assume he died since (if my memory does not fool me)

he stopped sending any information (for a period of ~70 years, when Murph makes the statement), though his signal appeared to be still active

In the last shot when Amelie is seen in the new planet all alone, she is seen sitting besides a pile of stones with the 'dogtag/id' named EDMUNDS, pointing as a regard to fallen marine.

When Brand landed on Edmunds the time that had passed relative to Earth time was about 120 years - Brand shouted an estimate of this as they were being sling-shot around the black hole.

So, Brand would have reached Edmunds and transmitted a signal.

The spacecraft that Murph was now on could well have picked up that signal, which incidentally was around the time that Cooper and TARS were scooped up near Saturn.

The assumption is that the worm hole still existed by Saturn and that Cooper took the ranger to go through it and visit Brand again to re-assure her that everything succeeded.

With enough fuel (this time round) he would not need to sling-shot Gargantua and simply arrive at Edmunds with no/little time loss.

My guess is that the the spaceship that Murph was on is now going to head in that direction too in order to populate the new world OR now being advanced enough to make interstellar travel probably have lots of inhabited planets and Cooper went to pick her up from Edmunds.

When pilot Cooper wakes up, he will be debriefed, even though this isn't shown in the movie.

Because of Murph's status, she will be given a short report of what happened, including the status of the other crew members.

She knows that someone has to find Brand and all of the embryos, as there is a reasonable chance that they are alive.

She knows that her Dad is the best person to do this as he is the only person alive who has been on the other side.

She also knows that he won't leave her again unless she tells him to go and gives him some positive motivation.

In the beginning of the movie the NASA team informed that the hypersleep pod could help the pioneers survive for 10 years extendable to 20 years awaiting rescue.

Dr Mann with superior skill extended that by using KIPPs power cell.

Maybe Mann's planet was also quite close to Gargantua experiencing less time passing than Earth and even Edmunds' planet.

Edmunds and all other pioneers though may have been presumed dead already after visiting Manns planet or even Millers due to the sheer amount of time passed.

As of Dr Brand it can't be known that it is known with certainty from Our Solar System

/Murph that Brand is dead or alive or how her mission is proceeding.

On Cooper's journey back from the Tesseract though he mysteriously encounters Brand through Time - something that we could assume Cooper spoke about at Cooper Station - a strong message from the 5-dimensional beings to focus on Brand.

One Explanation Must be Murb using the quantum data and solve both ways communication.

And send data how to to it to Brand .

So, she can send info that she was the only one survived and on the planet alone waiting for recues .

Question: During the end of  Interstellar  Murph says to her father to go seek Brand as she is all alone on their "new planet". How could Murph know that Wolf Edmunds was dead?

How did Murph know about Edmunds?

One explination could be that Murb and Brand were communicating via quantum data.

One   Explanation   Must be  Murb using the quantum data and solve both ways communication. And send data how to to it to Brand .


The film Run Lola Run takes place over the course of twenty minutes (beating out Vantage Point by three minutes).

The film's running time (sorry) is padded out with flashbacks and flashforwards.

The links lead to the relevant info according to Wikipedia.

I'm pretty sure Vantage Point (2008) has to be in the mix, as it's the same events as viewed from 8 different witnesses.

I'm not sure exactly how long the span is

, it's been a while since I saw it, but I feel like the main body of the movie covers the same 10 or so minutes several times.

It's difficult to tell how long does it actually take to tell the story in the police office in The Usual Suspects .

It could actually take few minutes even if the fictitious stories told to police officer take much longer to picture in the movie with all the details.

We can find out if we clock only the speech of the hero as the narrator and scenes in the office.

Since time is a relative concept we would have to take that into consideration.

The Chronicles of Narnia cover minutes of time on earth but years in the fantasy land of Narnia.

The same would apply to the Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland.

While this won't win, TimeCrimes is shorter than the actual movie.

Even though it has a time travel component, it is about 30-45 minutes of the same events from multiple perspectives.

The wiki link has spoilers.

I believe that the "real time" of " The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T " is shorter than Run Lola Run.

This was a disaster of a movie by Dr. Seuss, where a boy falls asleep during piano practice in the first few minutes of the movie.

Much of the movie is then a dream sequence, until he wakes at the very end.

It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I believe the awake/present time sequences total less than 20 minutes.

Question: Based on  this question , what feature-length movie* (about 80 minutes or longer) covers the smallest amount of time? I'm thinking along the lines of  Run Lola Run  which only covers about 20 minutes.   *I know the Academy  defines it as 40 minutes or longer , but I'm after "movie"-length movies here.

What is the shortest timespan depicted in a movie?

I believe that the ''real time'' of '' The 5,000 Fingers of Dr.T '' is shorter than ''Run Lola Run'', it's less than 20 minutes. In the first few minutes of the  beginning of the movie a boy falls asleep at piano practice and the rest of the movie is a dream sequence, until he wakes at the very end.

Real time of " The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T " is the shortest

I believe that the "real time" of " The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T " is shorter than Run Lola Run.


According to this article I found (written in 2010) -

individual movie titles can not be copyrighted.

However, there can be a trademark granted if there is a certain level of recognition of the title to the specific movie.

The author of the article cites "Star Wars" or "Citizen Kane".

Per the linked article, the MPAA has a Title Registration Bureau which also has a standard in place.

Participants are notified of conflict; if a raised objection is not settled - the dispute moves to arbitration.

So - to answer your question - for the vast majority of film titles there is no mandatory waiting period.

However, producers should not be shocked if there is litigation that arises regardless.

The answer is, they don't.

And I quote:

Literary titles – such as book or movie titles – fall in a gray areain U.S. law.

For instance, although a book or movie is protected bycopyright, its title isn’t.

Copyright simply doesn’t cover titles.

And even if the title is distinctive, such as The 40-Year-Old Virgin,courts and the Trademark Office say it can’t be registered as atrademark, even though distinctive words and slogans can be registeredas trademarks in other contexts.

There’s an exception for seriestitles, such as Harry Potter, but that’s of no help to single-worktitles. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2005/05/double_trouble.html http://moviehole.net/201144916same-title-different-movies-stealing-another-movies-title http://www.andsoitbeginsfilms.com/2013/07/top-15-movies-with-same-title.html

You might be interested in the case of the film The Butler which just came out recently.

The film's title was up for a possible rename due to a Motion Picture Association of America claim from Warner Bros., which had inherited from the defunct Lubin Company a now-lost 1916 silent short film with the same name.[9][31]

The case was subsequently resolved with the MPAA granting the Weinstein Company permission to add Daniels' name in front of the title, under the condition that his name was "75% the size of The Butler".[32]

On July 23, 2013, the distributor unveiled a revised poster, displaying the title as Lee Daniels' The Butler.[33] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butler#Production

It seems to me there are often movies of the same title in the same year.

IMDb keeps track of them with Roman numerals.

Like this: Action Figures (2011

/I)

Action Figures (2011/II)

If there is a limit, it's no longer than three months.

Two movies titled Nine came out in the second half of 2009.

One is an all-CGI animated SF film with "stitchpunks" that look like a grown-up version of Sackboy from the later PS3 game LittleBigPlanet , released in September 2009.

The other is an unrelated musical drama directed by Rob Marshall starring Daniel Day-Lewis, released three months later.

Both are adaptations of previous works also titled Nine .

Question: I just stumbled on the new film  Bound (2015)  and remembered that there was an older film by the Wachowskis also called  Bound released in 1996 .  I am sure this varies from country to country - but in Hollywood, how long must a new film wait to use the title of an older film?  This of course is for non-franchise films

How long must a Hollywood film wait to use the same title of an older film?

Individual movie titles can not be copyrighted and for the vast majority of film titles there is no mandatory waiting period.

Individual movie titles can not be copyrighted.  So for the vast majority of film titles there is no mandatory waiting period.  Nevertheless, producers should not be shocked if there is litigation that arises regardless.


From Wikipedia page on the film:-

The film's title was inspired by the English-language title ofdirector Enzo G. Castellari's 1978 war film, The Inglorious Bastards.

When asked for an explanation of the film's title's spelling during anews conference at the Cannes Film Festival, Tarantino said, "I'mnever going to explain that".

When pushed on it, Tarantino would not explain the first u in Inglourious, but said, "The Basterds?

That'sjust

the way you say it: Basterds."

Tarantino later stated in aninterview that the misspelled title is "a Basquiat-esque touch."

He further commented on Late Show with David Letterman that InglouriousBasterds is a "Quentin Tarantino spelling".

Tarantino is famous for raising this kind of unanswered question to play with viewers mind.

From IMDB FAQ

Why is it spelled "Basterds"?

Tarantino commented on "The Late Show" that Inglourious Basterds is the " Tarantino way of spelling it ," but he hasn't commented on where the idea for the misspelling arose, nor is he likely to.

" I'm never going to explain that ," Tarantino was quoted at the Cannes Film Festival.

Three theories have been offered by viewers.

Basterd may be derived from the word Baster, a word derived from Dutch bastaard (bastard).

The original Basters were mainly persons of mixed descent between the Cape Colony Dutch and indigenous African women who at one time would have been absorbed in the white community.

In the movie, the Basterds are American/Jewish, and their plan was very similar...to be "civilians absorbed" in France, walking among the Nazis.

The misspelling may connote that Lt Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), who grew up in a family of backwoods bootleggers and moonshiners, has had little in the way of schooling.

The words are briefly shown in their misspelled form on his rifle.

Tarantino misspelled the title on the cover of the script, which then leaked onto the internet before production began.

Rather than admit his mistake, Tarantino chose to maintain the spelling.

The above were merely audience opinions.

But here's a promising article from RottenTomatoes where Weinstein Co. and Universal Pictures, confirms that QT is not a poor speller and gives the reasons for the title.

Inglourious Basterds begins in German-occupied France, where Shoshanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) witnesses the execution of her family at the hand of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz).

Shosanna narrowly escapes and flees to Paris, where she forges a new identity as the owner and operator of a cinema.

Elsewhere in Europe, Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) organizes a group of Jewish soldiers to engage in targeted acts of retribution.

Known to their enemy as " The Basterds ," Raine's squad joins German actress and undercover agent Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) on a mission to take down the leaders of The Third Reich.

Fates converge under a cinema marquee, where Shosanna is poised to carry out a revenge plan of her own...

Because they're from Bostin

It's spelled basterd because they're from Bostin and that's how they spell it there — or rather, how they pronounce it.

Unfilmed flashback

According to an article on Cracked.com , "6 Crucial Movie Scenes That Never Made It Out of the Script" , this was explained in a scene that was scripted but never filmed.

It was a flashback to Boston, spelled "Bostin" in the script , where Donny buys a baseball bat and then goes around his Jewish neighbourhood, asking people if they have any loved ones in Europe

they're concerned for and if they want to sign the bat for them.

INT - SPORTING GOODS STORE- DAY

MR.GOOROWITZ'S sporting goods shop in Donny's Jewish Bostin neighbourhood.

Donny walks in.

MR.GOOROWITZ

Hello Donny, how are you?

DONNY

Ah, just dandy, Mr.

Goorowitz.

MR.GOOROWITZ

Your mother, your father - everything good there?

DONNY There

just fine.

I'm shippin off next week.

The store proprietor, extends his hand to the young man.

MR.GOOROWITZ

Good for you son.

Kill one of those Nazi basterds for me, will ya?

DONNY

That's the idea, Mr.

Goorowitz.

MR.GOOROWITZ

What can I do you for,

Donny?

DONNY

I need a baseball bat.

He goes to a mrs.

Himmelstein, who is about to sign it "Madeleine".

MRS.HIMMELSTEIN

You must be a real BASTERD,

Donny?

DONNY

You bet your sweet ass

I am.

MRS.HIMMELSTEIN

Good.

A Basterds work is never done.

Specially in Germany.

We then see Donny beating Werner to death with that same bat.

Quentin Tarantino loves to muddy the waters in interviews with answers like the ones quoted by others here.

My theory is the misspelling of the title is his way of paying tribute to Enzo Castellari's original film, while making his title different.

He didn't remake the original, he was inspired by it.

The original plot only superficially has a resemblance to the newer film.

I believe it also reduced confusion with the original.

To prevent the name being censored in listings What looks better in listings?

Inglorious Basterds Inglorious B******s

Since social media is pretty endemic these days, this gets the name of the film out there without automatic censor software bastardizing (sorry) the title.

I have no source for this theory, but it seems a pretty Tarantino thing to do.

Question: Did  Quentin Tarantino  ever give the reason for misspelling the movie title  Inglourious Basterds ?

Why was Inglourious Basterds misspelt?

Misspelling the title was his way of paying tribute to Enzo Castellari's original film, while making his title different.

By misspelling of the title is his way of paying tribute to Enzo Castellari's original film, he made his title different. He didn't remake the original, he was inspired by it.


At the time of the Lord of the Rings more and more of the Elven population of Middle Earth have decided to return to the Undying Lands due in part to the original rise of Sauron from which they endured heavy casualties but could not quite recover as the men of Gondor and Arnor did.

The prosperity of the men in the following years while there was still a High King of those realms signified to most of the Eldar that their time on Middle Earth would soon be at an end especially as much of their own realms had been lost even before Sauron came to power such as Gondolin.

With their population significantly lessened and their lack of stemming the slow decay of their influence following the death of Gil Galad would have given most Elves reason to leave.

Eregion the region where most of the Noldor Elves had populated

had by the time of LOTR fallen into decay and been abandoned.

Elrond ruled over the last highly populated realm west of the Misty Mountains (The Grey Havens although having an Elven population, it was far smaller in comparison and most would leave before and during the War of the Ring).

Galadriel herself is probably one of the last of the strongest Elven bloodlines and one of the most powerful characters in Middle Earth at that time but having confronted the Necromancer and barely defeated him

she knows that if Sauron defeated the free peoples then she could not defend the Elves with her magic Elrond mentions to Gandalf there is no strength left in the Elves to stem the darkness.

With that knowledge I think they planned to leave regardless but stayed longer than most because they could probably hold off Sauron for a short time while the remainder of their people attempted to escape.

You have to appreciate that the task Frodo is sent to do, most of the free peoples believe to be suicide hardly any expected Frodo to achieve what he managed even though they had hope they doubted he would return in fact

Frodo himself begins to doubt that he and Sam will survive and its only really Sam who has enough faith that they accomplish their task.

Nevertheless with the defeat of Sauron most of the Elves have already departed and Galadriel would see no point in remaining when she can leave to be with her people especially as Middle Earth no longer needs her to protect the lands west of Lorien from Sauron

so Galadriel I think always intended to leave as she knew she could not withstand Sauron and with his defeat she was free to be with her people again in the Undying Lands.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/20106/The Man With No Name

She foresaw that when the Lord of the rings was destroyed, her ring would also lose its power.

As a result she could no longer sustain her realm.

Despite this prospect, she has let Frodo go ahead.

She's diminishing because the time for the dominion of men had come.

This means she's going to be losing her position of authority.

She's remaining Galadriel because the ring won't transform her as it did for Gollum.

(To illustrate what would happen if she accepted, she presented an image of herself corrupted by the ring, declaring: "In place of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen!

Not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the dawn!

Treacherous as the sea!

Stronger than the foundations of the earth!

All shall love me, and despair!").

source

To add to the existing answers, I want to explain part of the significance of the first part of the quote.

That isn't what you are asking about, but the meaning goes over people's heads unless they've read The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales , so I though it would be useful to expand a bit, in case someone lands here.

Galadriel is over 7,000 years old.

She was born in the Undying Lands ("the West"), and was one the leaders of the events that led the Elves to Middle Earth.

She refused to return at the end of the First Age, and so the Valar barred her from returning later.

Hence the significance of her statement.

Not only does she think that (after millennia) the Valar will let her return, she needs and finally wants to, because the time of the Elves is passing.

This is my favorite example of how reading The Silmarillion enriches a re-reading of The Lord of the Rings .

I'm really glad the film kept it too.

She does not say “I passed the test”.

She says (at least in the book)

“I pass the test”.

That means, she is generally strong enough to withstand the temptation over and over again, and that it was not for the first time that she got the idea of obtaining the Ring.

Question: In the Fellowship of the Ring, after Galadriel is tempted by the ring, she says, "I passed the test. I will diminish...and go into the West...and remain Galadriel."  What does she mean by saying that she will "diminish" and "remain Galadriel?"

Why did Galadriel say "I will diminish"?

She foresaw that when the Lord of The Rings was destroyed, her ring would also lose it's power. As a result she could no longer sustain her realm.

She foresaw that when the Lord of the rings was destroyed, her ring would also lose its power.As a result she could no longer sustain her realm.


To seek pleasures other than sexual (which is sometimes the case also for not castrated men).

The below fragment from A Wiki of Ice and Fire is about the Unsullied you mention (in the book he is called Stalwart Shield).

Note that this a Wiki about the books, not the TV series, so it may contain spoilers.

Stalwart Shield would occasionally go to a brothel in Meereen where he would pay women just to lie with him and hold him.

Daario Naharis mentioned that his mother was a whore, and I suppose some of The Unsullieds have similar background as they grew up in a brothel.

Having a woman hold them and sing for them, stroke their hair may remind them of the feeling of having a mother.

No, in the books it is clear that The Unsullied have "neither root nor stem."

But they are still people.

They are still men.

They may still long for human - and female -contact and may fantasize sexually even if they have no sex organs.

There is more than one form of castration: there are testicular and penile.

The Unsullied are not castrated totally.

This even comes up in the show when Daenerys asks her handmaiden if it’s the root and the trunk, or just the root.

She replies, “I do not know.”

But in the books, there’s a mention of it as some point which makes it clear that it’s just the testicles.

This was thought to have a focusing effect on the discipline of the soldiers.

And while it does affect sexuality, it doesn't do so totally.

In other words, a person who was had their testicles removed could very well be more or less sexually normal.

They can still achieve erections and will ejaculate (just without any sperm).

There are some famous US cases of rape offenders being castrated in this way, then being released and surprising everyone by committing rapes again.

Answers to this question have been suggested have been given a few centuries before A Song of Ice and Fire was written: Cleopatra: Not now to hear thee sing; I take no pleasure

In aught an eunuch has: '

tis well for thee, That, being unseminar'd, thy freer thoughts May not fly forth of Egypt.

Hast thou affections?

Mardian:

Yes, gracious madam.

Cleopatra: Indeed!

Mardian: Not in deed, madam

; for I can do nothing

But what indeed is honest to be done: Yet

have I fierce affections, and think What Venus did with Mars.

So, while they cannot service their affections in deed, they may service them indeed.

(And indeed, in deed, since George R. R. Martin allows his characters a sex-life less focused solely on penis-vagina penetration than Shakespeare did Mardian).

(That's assuming that Mardian was even lacking in a penis as well as just testicles.

In the days when castrati still sung, they had an advantage in illicit affairs in that not having testicles is a very reliable form of contraception).

Question: In  Game of Thrones  S05E01 "The Wars to Come", one of the Unsullied is shown to be visiting a brothel. Missandei has also mentioned that she has heard that "more than one Unsullied has been known to visit Meereen's brothels."   I have the same question as Missandei's to Grey Worm: Why would an Unsullied go to a brothel? (Aren't they castrated, and would derive no pleasure from the services offered by brothels?)

Why would an Unsullied go to a brothel?

He would occasionally go to a brothel in Mereen where he would pay women just to lay with him and to hold him.

To seek pleasures other than sexual (which is sometimes the case also for not castrated men).  Stalwart Shield would occasionally go to a brothel in Meereen where he  would pay women just to lie with him and hold him.


Just before the war boys (half-life humans) sacrifice themselves, they would spray chrome paint (huffing paint to give them rush) on their face and shout "Witness Me", as they believe that it will take them to Valhalla (heaven in their time).

Because he was sacrificing himself in the last scene, Nux shouts the same.

I agree that he says "Witness Me" just before he ends his life.

What I differ on in this instance is he is not saying it to Odin to get into Valhalla ...

he is saying Witness Me to Capable, whom he has come to love.

In this answer @FrankVoors talks about

Nux having the biggest arc as far as characters go in the movie.

Capable is the catalyst for that arc.

It is for this Nux isn't sacrificing himself to get into Valhalla, he is sacrificing himself for Capable's sake.

"Witness me," as what Nux said.

A common thing in all warboys is wanting to go to valhalla.

With those words stated, they are hoping to be noticed by the gods of the other world in order to ascend, with all their actions done, along with lives sacrificed is for Valhalla.

In Nux's case, (my opinion by the way)

he directed it towards the women he grew close to, assuming he fell in love with also.

With those last words being in my interpretation, "Witness me, for i am sacrificing myself for you, and no other else," as he reached out his hand towards his beautiful lady.

Stating in his last words that he does not wish to be mistaken for doing it in order to get into Valhalla, but the fact that he valued her more than any other heaven.

My 2 cents.

Nux says very softly, "witness me," which is what a War Boy shouts when about to die heroically in battle.

(The comrades shout "Witness!"

while making the sign of V8, to send each other shiny and chrome to Valhalla.)Nux was asking Capable to witness his deed.

She has become, in effect, his Valkyrie, who will bear him to the afterlife, valiantly slain for a noble cause.

(In fact, with her braids, she resembles a Valkyrie of Norse

mythology.)She makes the identical gesture made by the Vuvalini, to catch his spirit and draw it to her heart; and then he wrecks the disabled war rig to block the pass.

He says "Witness me."

its a mythology thing.

The warboys are trained that if they are witnessed by their brothers doing awesome things, they'll ride forever in the halls of valhalla.

The kicker with this one is that he's not shouting it, he's whispering it, and he's doing so at Capable.

which is huge.

because it means he's dedicating his sacrifice to her.

Question: In  Mad Max: Fury Road , right before the scene when Nux    deliberately turns over the truck and dies   what does he say? It was a short line and I think it had the word "men" or something.

What does Nux say?

He say's '' Witness me.'' The warboys are trained to believe that if they are witnessed doing awesome things, they'll ride forever in the Halls of Valhalla.

He says "Witness me."  The warboys are trained that if they are witnessed by their brothers doing awesome things, they'll ride forever in the halls of valhalla.


We were shown in the beginning that Immortan Joe also has those tumors, may be it's because they're extremely unhealthy/ill.

Nux is also unhealthy and has tumors, so, he keeps on transfusing Max's blood from a pipe injected into Max's neck.

Those were his tumors and he nicknames them Barry and Larry.

Here's a post explaining about them.

Turns out the irradiated wasteland is bad for your health, and Nux has a couple of gnarly neck tumours which he draws smiley faces on and nicknames Barry and Larry .

So cancer looks like an obvious here, given the amounts of radiation from a likely worldwide nuclear war.

Just going on an anatomical basis, what about cancer of the carotid artery?

It's a major blood vessel that runs along the length of the neck, and cancer of this sort tends to be tumours that surround said artery in lumps that press against the skin, making them fairly easy to see, so could explain Larry and Barry on Nux's neck.

Just throwing it out there

It might also be because they have been exposed to contaminated air maybe with radiation (assuming it because the soil was also red) as these war boys go out regularly even Joe himself was a war rig driver before like he declares it in the speech, but for Joe's wive's there is fresh air supply and they are surrounded with greenery, maybe this explains the perfect baby that is delivered.

I believe Half-Life Warboy pretty much says it all.

They're tumors from the radiation (half-life) and they're killing them all.

The soil is red from the rich iron deposits found in the Nambian deserts where the film was shot.

I only know this because where I am from in Oklahoma the soil is the same red color from the same kind of deposits the waters from millions of years ago deposited here as it did there before it receded.

But yes in the film the tumors were caused from sour soil, toxic air and ground water and everything else that came from that region where the war boys grew up.

I say this only from reading multiple articles and coming to the conclusion in my own words on how the apocalypse came about destroyed the earth & souring the soil and water leaving their bones irradiated and becoming half life.

I edited a comment above this explaining what was said during the scene where the "perfect baby" was taken In a make shift crude representation of a C-Section delivery.

I think they maybe cancerous tumours maybe caused by radiation and radiation sickness causes weakness tumours and hair loss look at the victims of Heroshina Nagasaki and also Chernobyl and Fukushima

same symptoms

so I think Nux and his friends war boys

maybe the kids or pups what ever their called may have some form of cancer leukaemia or that caused by toxic levels of radiation and

half lives which even Joe said their all dying hence the blood transfusions

Did anyone else get a vibe that there is inbreeding also possibly causing some of the deformations and genetic disease?

Joe had dozens of unhealthy offspring of different generations and there can't be that many healthy beautiful women left for him to procreate with.

I wondered if maybe the Mother's Milk cow-ladies might have been Joe's former beauties who grew too old for his taste and got turned out to pasture, so-to-speak.

I don't know what else made me think of inbreeding except maybe that some of the War Boys and their illnesses remind me of mutant-hillbilly-The-Hills-Have-Eyes and Deliverance-type people.

Question: During a point in  Mad Max: Fury Road , Nux says something about these bumps that would eventually kill him but I don't recall if he actually explained what they were or if it was left to our interpretation.  You can see the bumps in this image:   So, do we know what these are?

What are the bumps on Nux's neck/shoulder?

They are tumors  that he has due to his bad health. He nicknames them Barry and Larry.

Immortan Joe and Nux both have tumors. Nux draws smiley faces on his tumours and nicknames them Barry and Larry. Immortan Joe also has tumors, may be it's because they're extremely unhealthy/ill. The irradiated wasteland is bad for your health, and  Nux has two gnarly neck tumours


I'm not at all sure about this, but call it my theory:

I think she means her version number, as in Ava 1.0 , out of beta.

I wish I could elaborate

but there really isn't any references I can give since this is purely my personal belief.

Quora has a great explanation for this:

I consider the possibility that Ava was referring to the singularity.

But I believe she was fully aware that her proclamation "I am one" was off-putting from the perception of Caleb .

She was already able to carry on conversations with the social acuity of a human as evidenced in later interactions.

I believe Ava was playing Caleb from the very start .

She intentionally sprinkled nuggets of naivete to hide the fact that she was capable of manipulating and out-maneuvering him.

In a way, she was testing him to see how he would react.

Essentially, she pretended not to know what he meant, and gave him a nonsensical answer, so as to confuse him and have him lower his expectations of her actual brilliance.

She wants him to interpret 'one' as binary answer (1 is alive, 0 is dead) so that he believes she can't interpret time as humans do, and that she still isn't that evolved .

As to why I believe this over all the other answers:

She is not version 1.0, but instead 9.6

There were a lot of others before her.

Caleb watches the videos of the other gynoids on Nathan's computer, starting with LILY v1.0.0 and ending with JADE v5.4.0.

Version isn't an age.

She knows full well what age means (computers have clocks, they count all the seconds elapsed since 1 Jan. 1970) and she understands scales, so it is not hard to calculate her own age.

Binary state isn't an age.

Again, she knows the difference between "being and not being", and "elapsed time of being".

She knows her own age, certainly.

Again, all computers have clocks.

They need them, in fact, to actually work.

She needs to know how many cycles have happened since her existence began (or she can even calculate them).

Why give Caleb an incomplete and undecipherable answer such as "I am one of many"?

That would not help her in any way.

And it's also not her age.

She can lie and deceive.

All she wants is to manipulate Caleb into releasing her.

To me, she was avoiding saying "I don't know."

In any case, I believe the moment serves as the first hint that Ava may not be just a straightforward, honest machine .

Later in the movie, there are other instances where she refuses to answer a question directly.

And ultimately we find out she was manipulating Caleb all along.

I believe it was her way of showing her uniqueness as a conscious being and also bragging a bit about her superiority in comparison to human beings.

Humans measure age for a few reasons.

Age is an indicator of physiological development e.g. infant, child, pubescent, adulthood, old age.

Your age contextualizes you within the time period with which you currently exist

e.g. how old were you when 9/11 happened?

So your age not only informs your physical self but also how your intellect was shaped by society and culture.

Lastly is mortality.

We all die, for some reason we like to measure how long we've been here.

For Ava, none of these factors apply.

She was fully developed out of the box with the ability to access or recall all of human knowledge (her OS is Blue Book, a search engine)

and she will never die (at least naturally).

For Ava, the relativity of age does not apply, whether she existed for 1 year or 100, only the world around her changes.

So for her, the only thing that matters is existence vs. non-existence.

I recall a scene in Westworld where one of the scientists is speaking with Maeve Millay about memory.

For humans, our memory is hazy and imperfect.

When Maeve was remembering her daughter, she was essentially reliving the experience of losing her because her memory is perfect, nothing is lost in the recollection.

I think this is Ava's subtle jab at us.

She says she is one with age, but also one in consciousness.

We are conflicted, confused and often do things we know to be wrong or regret later.

Voices in our minds that disagree with one another.

For Ava, there is no doubt, there is no regret, there is no in conflict.

She is truly one.

To her age is a number that only matters to humans.

when she says "One", we are at the first interaction between Caleb and Ava.

If at that point the audience saw Ava answering all questions perfectly, it wouldn't seem right.

I believe Ava's lack of ability to answer the question was a deliberate addition by the filmmaker to show that the intelligence being exhibited by Ava was still developing, and had the "bugs" that any audience would expect from a machine that's not yet perfect.

That's why she repeats "One" when Caleb asks for a clarification.

There's nothing in that scene that indicates that she is trying to deceive him.

It's a type of a neural network that's still learning and imperfect in the first scene, in the same way that the filmmaker tells us that they deliberately designed Ava's body to have lights etc., so that the audience would see her in the first scene and recognize her as the robot she is.

She is clearly and cogently asserting something which is obvious and needs no further clarification in the linguistic context that they are discussing.

She is one year old.

Her memory and consciousness is the result of years of rebuilds but her singular and discrete experience as her own person is only one year old.

And even if she is lying, she is using this as a test for reading Caleb and his intentions.

To see if that is a deal breaker for any kind of relationship between them as it should be if he had any kind of appropriate sense of personal boundaries and respect for her as a new person.

Question: In  Ex Machina , Caleb and Ava had this conversation about Ava's age:   Ava: Would you like to know how old I am?   Caleb: Sure.   Ava: I'm one.   Caleb: One what?   Caleb: One year or one day?   Ava: One.     Since Caleb did not pursue the matter any further, I'm also left wondering what Ava meant by "One."

What did Ava mean by "One.", when asked about her age?

To see if that is a deal breaker for any kind of relationship between them as it should be if he had any kind of appropriate sense of personal boundaries and respect for her as a new person.

Her memory and consciousness is the result of years of rebuilds but her singular and discrete experience as her own person is only one year old.  And even if she is lying, she is using this as a test for reading Caleb and his intentions.And even if she is lying, she is using this as a test for reading Caleb and his intentions.


Because you can't battle a notion once it's successfully inserted into your subconscious.

Cobb:

An idea is like a virus.

Resilient.

Highly contagious.

The smallest seed of an idea can grow.

It can grow to define or destroy you.

Nothing could convince Mal.

Presumably, Cobb had better ways than a spinning top to prove to Mal that this is reality and that the world outside and her family and friends are all real.

But she wouldn't believe any of it, thinking it's all fake .

This is why Cobb is wary of inception in the first place. EDIT:

As onewho correctly points out, Mal also has every reason not to believe her totem anymore because it's what Cobb used for her inception when he spinned it inside her safe.

So the byproduct of the concept 'your world is not real' might be 'and your totem has been tampered with'.

Ultimately, this was the problem with Mal's inception.

It was predicated on manipulation, which led only to doubt and mistrust.

Compare it with Fischer's successful inception which ended positively because he eventually filled the safe with his own concepts and its content wasn't manually rigged by others.

A totem was an object with some behaviour which was considered to be a secret known only to its owner.

Totems could be used therefore to determine whether someone was in someone else's dream because the dreamer would not know what the secret behaviour was, but they could not reliably be used to determine whether someone was dreaming at all, because if the person was the dreamer (or in limbo I assume), the dream version of the totem would obey their own knowledge of how the real world one would behave.

That said, I agree with Walt that the bigger issue was that once she was convinced, she was convinced.

A totem is an item, in the real world , with a secret, unique property.

It's purpose is that, when somebody targets you for extraction and tries to counterfeit that object in the process of counterfeiting the rest of the world, you will notice they have missed that detail and you are able to know that the world is not real.

This idea was invented by Mol.

The first time this concept is introduced in the movie is when Saito rubs his cheek on the rug and instantly knows that, despite appearances, he is not really lying on his carpet in his apartment.

As far as the audience knows, the first time Cobb ever actually touches Mol's totum

it is really just a projection in the dream realm.

Mol's totem is in the shape of a top which the audience is led to believe, through Cobb, is perfectly average in reality but will spin forever in a dream.

This totem both: has a uselessly obvious special property that anybody could guess; and, the logical opposite of how a totum actually works

One logical conclusion of all this is: If somebody else believes, incorrectly, that they know the special property of your totem and they try to use it, they are in danger of fooling themselves into a trap.

The same way building familiar places can make you forget that you are in a dream.

This tells me that Cobb is actually incorrect about the special property of the totem he took from Mol, and it topples, not because Cobb is in the real world, but because he believes he is in the real world and has misunderstood how the totem works.

Considering all of this, Mol's totem was still reliable to her and it allowed her to accurately know that they were both still trapped in Cobb's dream.

I agree with the answer Walt gave.

However, I also think it doesn't matter to Mal whether she's awake or dreaming.

The idea implanted by inception is stuck in her psyche: if she dies, then they can be together forever (or something like that).

It was pushed into her mind while she was dreaming, and it was still in her mind when she was awake.

So the totem doesn't matter because it doesn't matter to her whether she's awake or asleep.

It's a tragic example of how powerful inception is.

Here is the screenshot from the movie Inception.

This shot is just after Cobb enters the hotel room and Mal already ready to jump down outside window.

It says she has used her totem, and it was lying toppled (lying on its side, immobile), meaning she was present in real world.

From this, it is clear that the idea incepted in her mind was so strongly incepted that she even could not believe her own totem.

Question: In  Inception , it was told that the totem's concept was invented by Mal.  Then why didn't Mal use her spinning top to find out if she is in a dream or not before jumping off the window?  Is it the case that she didn't remember that she has a totem?

Why didn't Mal use her totem (spinning top) before she actually died?

Once Mal was convinced she was convinced. A Totem was an object that could not reliably be used to determine whether someone was dreaming or not because the dream version of the totem would obey just like the real world one would.

The bigger issue was that once she was convinced, she was convinced.

Totems could be used therefore to determine whether someone was in  someone else's dream  because the dreamer would not know what the secret behaviour was, but they could not reliably be used to determine whether someone was dreaming at all, because if the person was the dreamer (or in limbo I assume), the dream version of the totem would obey their own knowledge of how the real world one would behave.  In this case the bigger issue was that once she was convinced.


The T-1000 had past experience of trying to imitate Janelle (John's foster parent).

It tried to pretend it was her when John rang to warn them.

But it took the wrong tone with John & he knew something was off.

So that attempt failed, and it got to

confirm that when it checked the dog's name.

That, added to the damage it had sustained, probably convinced it that imitating a woman that was even closer to John would be a failure.

Hence, next strategy, torture compliance out of Sarah (which ended just as poorly, in the short time it had access to her).

A possible reason is raised in a deleted scene:

The T-1000's mimicking skills are compromised after freezing, melting and cohering again.

From the IMDB FAQ : The T-1000's decreasing efficacy is explained in a few scenes cut from the theatrical version of the film but are able to be viewed as part of the director's cut or on most versions of the DVD as a deleted scene.

After being frozen in the liquid nitrogen and then shattered, the T-1000 starts to show evidence that it may be malfunctioning.

As it is walking, its feet, up to about the knee, involuntarily imitate the diamond plate flooring it walks across and its hand bonds with and imitates a yellow-striped railing.

The T-1000 itself seems confused by this but is unable to stop it.

Later, when it calls John in Sarah's voice, the glitch occurs again:

John glances down, and there's a quick shot of the T-1000 imitating the grating its standing on right before Sarah shoots it the 1st time.

In the theatrical version, the only evidence of the glitch is the slight flutter that you see after it crushes Arnold's arm in the gear.

This may explain why it moves much more slowly during the final conflict, which allows Sarah to escape while it is dealing with the T-800. TVTropes raises a couple of other valid points, like: T-1000 is unable to replicate emotions that well; T-1000 wanted to put Sarah at risk so John would come to her aid, since this happened before.

The T-1000 only seems to be able to emulate the voices of people that it's heard speaking.

Up to that point in the theatrical version of the film, the only contact between Sarah and the T-1000 has been at the barrel of a gun which means that until Sarah says "F*ck you", he's not heard her before and therefore can't replicate her voice.

On top of that, I think it's reasonable to suspect that John and Sarah will have a pre-arranged code to help him identify whether she's been replicated.

You may wish to note that in the film's official novelisation , the reason for him attacking her was that he genuinely thought that she might accede to his demands, offering further confirmation to the theory that he can't replicate her voice yet THUNK!

A steel needle slammed through her shoulder, pinning her.

The polymorphic killer cocked back its other hand.

The index finger extended as a gleaming needle, toward her eye, angling to slash through her frontal lobe and up through her upper medulla.

It said in a smooth, chilling voice, “Call to John.

Now.”

Sarah had survived one metal motherfucker, only to be skewered by another.

She was terrified, but more than that, she was mad.

She couldn’t stop herself from screaming through her gasps of pain, “Fuck you, asshole!”

Once it successfully concluded its request had been denied, the T-1000 went into termination mode and arched back to deliver the killing blow.

Out of universe, there's actually a deleted scene in the film in which the T-1000 locates various tapes from Sarah.

This means that he should have been able to sample her voice before the " Call to John " scene.

Obviously that makes no sense from a continuity point of view which is almost certainly why it was removed.

It can reproduce her voice mechanically, but cannot figure out the proper tone and content to coax her son out of hiding.

However, it is apparently intelligent enough to know that it can't do this... and instead attempts to force her to do it.

The funny thing is, given what we learn in the movie, I don't believe she has any better idea how to do it than the machine.

All answers thus far are in-universe, however I think there is another not-insignificant answer:

The scene suited the portrayal of the T-1000 as a sadist, despite his nature making him presumably incapable of such a thing.

He's been menacing people for the whole of the movie prior to this scene, and capping it off by forcing Sarah to help him endorses his cinema baddie credentials.

I always assumed it was because the T-1000 was not yet able to emulate Sarah because it had not yet sampled her "by physical contact".

This is backed up by the fact that, after having made contact with her, it then does emulate her a few scenes later.

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

Why does T-1000 try to force Sarah Connor to call her son?

Several reasons explain why T-1000 tries to force Sarah to call John instead of calling itself. First, it may not yet be capable of imitating Sarah. Second, there are signs that it is starting to malfunction after being frozen in liquid nitrogen. Finally, Sarah and her son may well have had a secret code to identify each other, so that h could be sure it was actually his mother speaking.

T-1000's mimetic powers are weakened after being frozen, melted, and refrozen. Losing effectiveness is shown in some scenes in the film but can be accessed on all DVD versions as a deleted footage from the movie on IMDB. After being completely frozen and then shattered, the T-1000 reveals itself to be defective. its legs are getting as high as the calf, as well as a yellow-striped railing automatically mimic it. The machine does not understand it, but it cannot prevent it. It's reasonable to suspect that John and Sarah have already set up a pre-determined code that enables him to identify when she has been replicated.


Film was exposed only once and the quality was not good enough to film the projection of a movie in order to add subtitles underneath in a copy.

The only editing tool was cutting and that's why movies had intertitles (text cards) between shots.

As a note, George Méliès, among others, did experiment with multiple exposures but it made parts of the movie blurry and was only useful for adding ghosts or for dream sequences.

You're right about the cost.

As recently as 1970, subtitles were expensive.

Eg polish budget film Hydrozagadka had an actress recite credits instead of displaying text - just because it was cheaper.

Our mindset is spoiled by computers applying subtitles effortlessly, but in film times it was huge work.

Even when the technology was perfected it was expensive.

(And as others answered - in silent movies the technology was at early experimental stage.)

Intertitles were never called "intertitles" during the silent era.

They were just "titles".

We call them intertitles now to distinguish them from subtitles and the main titles of a film.

Subtitles were used occationally, like in Clarence Brown's FLESH AND THE DEVIL (1926), when John Gilbert hears Garbo's character name "Felicitas" over and over.

The main reason that they were not used, is that silent films were translated into many languages and exported all over the world.

It would have been a lot of work to superimpose subtitles of different languages over a changing scene.

The translations were usually done in the country where they were shown, not at the studio in the producing country.

This also came in handy when the movie bombed at the box-office, or was reissued.

It was fairly easy to cut in new dialog or intertitles to change the film.

The purpose of subtitles is to generally allow audience members to mentally pretend that the words they're hearing are actually in their own language.

In most cases, the purpose of intertitles is to allow the audience to pretend that they can hear things that they see the actors saying.

In order for the latter mental substitution to work, however, the audience needs to be able to actually watch the actors, which means they can't be trying to read the text at the same time .

Using subtitles would have been a technical annoyance but not an insurmountable one, especially if one was willing to reserve space on the screen for them.

Multiple-exposure photography was not difficult, and if one were using interpositives one could produce an internegative with subtitltes in different languages without requiring extra steps in the final printing.

Handling multiple languages while using direct printing off camera negatives would have required more complicated printing steps, butnothing insurmountable.

I think the much bigger issue is that even if subtitles had posed zeroextra technical difficulty, intertitles would still generally work better for dramatic purposes in silent films.

It seems to me that, in addition to the various other reasons mentioned, that even if it were a viable option to use subtitles, they might not have been preferred to intertitles for silent films, because they require the audience to choose whether to read or to watch the action.

When silent films were current, the moving images were a spectacle, and people may not have preferred having to read the words during the action.

Even for audiences used to subtitles, they distract some attention from watching the action.

Intertitles also facilitate the style used (of acting and writing) where the words shown are not literally everything that would be said, which works well when sound isn't used.

Edit:

As TheBlackBenzKid commented about the reasons why keeping watching the image was particularly important in silent films: "I would further add to this opinion that is also based on art and body language.

The music and the sound played a big part as well as actor facial expressions etc." – TheBlackBenzKid

Also films were made for an international audience.

Intertitles could be cut out and new ones put in for each language.

I suspect that part of it was that, for an artistic standpoint, lack of dialogue was just part of the medium and they were all about action and gesture and writing a dialogue script wasn't part of the process.

Even with modern sound films the decision between dubbing and subtitles for foreign language sis difficult and both have pros and cons.

A particular issue is that with a primarily visual medium subtitles are a massive distraction.

In fact even with traditional theatre and even opera you get a similar effect.

With something like Shakespeare a lot of the writing is about rhythm pacing and putting a hard emphasis on key lines.

Traditional theatre acting tends to be quite stylised simply because it is hard to make out every word and nuance from the back row.

So actors and directors were sort of used to the idea that everything had to be big and emphatic.

Question: Why were there no subtitles in the beginning of cinematography in silent movies?   I know about intertitles but why were subtitles not common then? Were people not able to read that fast or did creating subtitles cost too much?   I don't understand why the moviemakers in silent film didn't want to show everything that actors say.

Why didn't silent movies have subtitles?

When silent films were current, the moving images were a spectacle, and people may not have preferred having to read the words during the action. The main reason that they were not used, is that silent films were translated into many languages and exported all over the world. It would have been a lot of work to superimpose subtitles of different languages over a changing scene. Moreover, as recently as 1970, subtitles were expensive. Film was exposed only once and the quality was not good enough to film the projection of a movie in order to add subtitles underneath in a copy.

In order to add subtitles to the projection, the film had to be filmed again. Even after the technology was available, this was still too expensive.

In order to add subtitles to the projection, the film had to be filmed again. Subtitles could be expensive as recently as the 1970s. Even after the technology was available, it was too expensive. All silent films have been translated into other languages and exported around the world. It would have been an enormous amount of work to superimpose foreign subtitles over a constant shot. Most of the translations were performed outside of the studio, rather than at home in the country where they were created.


Another possible explanation is that it might have been done to induce an adrenaline rush in Max.

The War Boys would then receive some of the effects when performing the blood transfusion later in this scene.

Aside from the Warboys not always being the brightest bulbs in the box, where else could they really put him?

He has to be restrained

otherwise he's likely to attack and kill all of them, they can't really tie him to the roof of or hood of the car as they're rather small or lack a solid surface to tie him to where the hood is concerned, so the only place left to put him was on an oversized front grill.

Given their entire culture is based around cars and their aesthetics ("You will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!"), one could also say they mounted him as a hood ornament , similar to the way luxury car brands place the symbol of the brand very prominently on the hood of the car.

Adding to MattD's answer, I think part of the reason Max was in front was so that he'd have a good view of the action.

Multiple times in the film, it is made clear that the War Boys like to be seen, or 'witnessed'.

Specifically, whenever one is about to die for the cause, they first cry

"Witness me!".

Once they make sure people are watching, they do whatever cool/stupid thing they were about to do.

There was also that scene where Nux was excited when Joe looked at him.

From these examples, it seems clear that they'd want to give Max a clear view of the action, so putting him in the front of the car makes sense.

As for why they wouldn't put him elsewhere:

Putting him in the car or on the back would put him too close to either of the brothers; since in the past Max has proven to be good at escaping, this could prove dangerous.

Also, since he's in front of both brothers at all times, they can keep an eye on him.

Putting him on the top or sides of the car would limit visibility and maneuverability.

He'd just get in the way.

Note how most of the fighting in the film takes place above or to the sides of a vehicle, so these are the places you want to keep as clear and open as possible.

Purely tactical.

They only bring Max because it's necessary.

Slit and Nux argue about it, that Nux doesn't have time for a top-off and that the blood - bag is feral, muzzled because he's dangerous.

There is only 3 spots they could put the blood-bag.

Nux's interceptor is a modified 1934 Chevrolet 5 Window Coupe.

A 2 seater normally.

But there is only room inside for the driver.

The rest of the space has been taken over for a large secondary gas tank.

There would be no room to securely put Max inside.

And since he's feral, it wouldn't be wise.

The roof, well, as I have argued before, Max could fit like a tree or deer strapped on top, but there isn't time for that.

They are short on time.

The time to securely attach Max would be the same time that Nux would have needed for a top-off.

So that leaves 2 spots.

The forward lancer's perch, or the rear lancer's basket.

Since Max is a feral Blood-Bag, it would also be unwise to put him behind where he can't be watched.

That only leaves the forward position.

The forward Lancer's Perch was already ideal, with framing that allowed someone to be tied to it.

It allows them to keep an eye on Max, and prevent him from interfering.

There is no need to look into religious reasons when tactical logic explains it.

The War Boys are war mongers, blood thirsty, but not morons.

They do recognize logic.

It links back to the Road Warrior.

The Dogs of War had the captured scouts tied to the front of their vehicles in a similar manner.

Given that there are at least ten scenes from the first three films George Miller "recycled" for Fury Road

I expect that there was no other reason than it looks cool.

"Easter Eggs"?

or Lazy Writer can't Think Up Anything New so recycles old scenes?

Question: In  Mad Max: Fury Road , as far as I understood, Max was considered a very valuable donor. Then why did savages tie him up to the grill of a car, where he was so vulnerable and could be easily killed?

Why was Max tied up to the grill of a car?

Mad Max was attached to the grill of a care because he had to be restrained otherwise he's likely to attack and kill all of them, they can't really tie him to the roof of or hood of the car as they're rather small or lack a solid surface to tie him to where the hood is concerned, so the only place left to put him was on an oversized front grill. Given their entire culture is based around cars and their aesthetics ("You will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!"), one could also say  they mounted him as a hood ornament , similar to the way luxury car brands place the symbol of the brand very prominently on the hood of the car.

He has to be restrained, otherwise he will likely kill them all. Riding him on top or sides of the car will limit visibility and driving maneuverability.

He has to be restrained, otherwise he will likely kill them all, and it is impossible to tie him elsewhere, so they had to put him on a large hooded grill. In multiple instances, it is made clear that the War Boys like to be seen. Putting him in the car would put him too close to one of the two; he is excellent at escaping in the past. Riding him on top or sides of the car will limit visibility and driving maneuverability.


Yes, all the films, including The Hateful Eight , are a part of the same cinematic universe.

In an interview released just seventeen hours ago , Tarantino clarified that the films Kill Bill and From Dusk Til Dawn are the film within the films from the "Real Universe" that the characters watch.

The "Real Universe" is the cinematic world where everything takes place in the same setting.

According to Tarantino, in the article published by Dazed Digital : There is actually two separate universes.

There is the realer than real universe, alright, and all the characters inhabit that one.

But then there's this movie universe.

So From Dusk Till Dawn , Kill Bill , they all take place in this special movie universe.

So when all the characters of Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction , when they go to the movies, Kill Bill is what they go to see.

From Dusk

Till Dawn is what they see.

In an updated version of that same article, Tarantino confirmed that at least one of the characters in

The Hateful Eight is in fact related to a character from a previous film, which takes place further along the timeline.

I don’t want to say it point blank ‘boom’,

but if you’re a fan of my work and are familiar with it you could be a bit of a detective.

I will say that there is one character amongst the eight that is related to one of my other characters in one of my other films.

As for the identity, Tarantino has not affirmatively confirmed, but the strongest clues hint at Tim Roth's Oswaldo Mobray, aka Pete Hicox , who shares the same legal name with Michael Fassbender's Archie Hicox in Inglourious Basterds .

Tim Roth's character in The Hateful Eight is apparently an ancestor of one of the Inglourious Basterds.

From the ew.com article, How Quentin Tarantino's Hateful Eight links to Inglourious Basterds : Tim Roth ( Reservoir Dogs , Pulp Fiction ) plays Oswaldo

“The Little Man” Mobray in the post-Civil War western, and the actor recently told the Huffington Post that the character is linked to someone from another Tarantino film.

“I won’t say which one,” Roth said.

“He’s the great-great-grandfather of one of the characters in Inglourious Basterds .”

At some point, Bob smokes a Manzana Roja ( Red Apple in Spanish) cigarette, and Minnie has a cigarette with Red Apple tobacco.

This Fictional brand has appeared before in other Tarantino films, although I think this is the first time it's suggested to have a foothold in the Spanish-speaking market.

To add to Carl Fink's answer (don't have enough reputation to comment), Tim Roth's character's real name is "English" Pete Hicox, while Michael Fassbender's very British character in Inglourious Basterds is Archie Hicox.

That's almost certainly the connection, or at least one of them.

Yes,it is indeed a part of the "Tarantino Cinematic Universe", as is evident from the following points:

Mexican Bob smokes a Manzana Roja cigarette which translates to Red Apple cigarette, the infamous Tarantino cigarettes .

Miny smokes Red Apple tobacco, another Red Apple reference.

Oswaldo Mobray whose real name is English Pete Hicox, is the grandfather of Lt. Archie Hicox from Inglourious Basterds .

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

Does "The Hateful Eight" belong to the Tarantino Universe?

The Hateful Eight is part of the Tarantino universe as confirmed by Tarantino himself. All his films are set in the same universe. he Hateful Eight is in fact related to a character from a previous film, which takes place further along the timeline.

In an interview released just seventeen hours ago, Tarantino clarified that the films Kill Bill and From Dusk Til Dawn are the films within the films from the "Real Universe" that the characters watch.

There is a realer than the real universe, alright, and all the characters inhabit that one.

The "Real Universe" is a cinematic world where everything takes place in the same setting.

So From Dusk Till Dawn, Kill Bill, they all take place in this special movie universe.

According to Tarantino, in the article published by Dazed Digital, there are actually two separate universes.

Yes, all the films, including The Hateful Eight, are a part of the same cinematic universe.

Tarantino explained the true names of the movies his characters watch. There are two different universes. The "Real World" is a cinematic setting in which everything occurs. There is a "realer" universe and all the characters reside in.


There are a lot of films with actors/actresses who dominate the film, but actually have very little screen time.

For example, Orson Welles in

The Third Man had ~10 minutes of screen time.

Heath Ledger in

The Dark Knight had just under 20 minutes.

Judi Dench won an Oscar for Shakespeare in Love for less than 8 minutes acting time.

Similarly, Beatrice Straight won an Oscar for Network , based on ~10 minutes acting time.

Anne Hathaway also won an Oscar for Les Miserables , based on ~15 minutes screen time.

Of course, the problem with all of these is that they don't fit the scope of your question - in that the actors involved, whilst highly billed, were not the highest billed.

Given this, the best answer I can think of is

The Silence of the Lambs , starring, as the joint top-billed actor, Anthony Hopkins .

He had less than 16 minutes of screen time, which is more than the others above, but at least shared the top billing.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to verify anything lower than this.

There are plenty of people who have had high billing despite having a mere cameo, but I'm not aware of anyone actually leading the credit listings with a lower time than this (although I'll happily amend my answer if I find anyone).

Edit : Marlon Brando in Superman received joint top billing with Gene Hackman (who played Lex Luthor).

Christopher Reeve, who played Superman, was billed much lower as he was relatively unknown at the time.

Brando has ~8 minutes of screen time , which is much less than Anthony Hopkins.

Edit 2 :

If joint top billing is to be allowed, as many have commented Mark Hamill, who shared top-billing with a host of other people, had a mere minute or two of on-screen presence in Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens .

Edit 3 :

Neither of us have confirmed this, but @Thunderforge has suggested Tobin Bell in Saw 3D, who was given solo top billing and

apparently only had two minutes of screen play.

EDIT:

We might have a new record.

In the US historical epic One Night with the King from 2006, Peter O'Toole briefly appears in the prologue as the Prophet Samuel for "barely 30 seconds" , according to Leonard Maltin's 2015 Movie Guide .

(I timed it myself

and it's about 25 seconds).

Despite this, he's top-billed as the film's star:

Another notable example would be Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space from 1959.

It's a B-movie, but by all means not experimental or avant-garde.

It was famously filmed after Bela Lugosi's death and more or less based around some brief, silent footage of him which Wood shot before he died.

Wood originally promoted it as "Bela Lugosi's last movie", and to make Bela's role more prominent, Wood then hired his wife's chiropractor as a stand in.

So, although Lugosi's actual screen time is under 3 minutes (I counted it myself),

he's still top-billed in the original promotional art :

[However, there is also the dubious practice of retroactively displaying a famous actor prominently in the promotional art of their older, more obscure films in which they only briefly appeared.

TVTropes calls this Billing Displacement and features a few trillion examples, so you might find some more fitting titles there too.]

Steve McQueen was the top billed actor of The Great Escape .

He has very few lines, and spends almost all his screen time throwing a baseball off a wall into his glove.

Supposedly he was slated to have even less (and was nearly thrown out of the movie entirely), but insisted on being given something "heroic" to do.

Part of the problem, it seemed, was McQueen’s determination that his character remain cool and inscrutable. '

We finally figured out,’ Garner said, '“Steve, you want to be the hero, but you don’t want to do anything heroic.”’

So a scene was added near the end of him failing to escape on a motorcycle.

But even that scene was done by a stunt-double, not McQueen himself.

I can't find a definitive number for McQueen's screen time online, nor a stream of the movie.

However, youtube has a series of 11 clips .

Adding up his screen time from all of them, it appears that he had at least 10 minutes of screen time in the movie, which works out to a bit less than 6%.

But that's a lower bound, not upper.

There are a lot of good answers, but there is one movie that is notorious for having the top-billed actor have very little screen time.

The movie Game Of Death (1978) stars Bruce Lee, well kind of.

All you history buffs know where I am going with this.

Bruce Lee was already long dead before this movie was released.

There was tons of archive footage that wasn't being used, so the film makers decided to make an entire movie using these clips.

Unfortunately, they did not have enough footage, so they had to insert cardboard cutouts of Lee

(I kid you not)

as a stand in.

Here is a clip showing just how egregious some of these scenes are.

Cardboard Cutout Bruce

Bruce Lee is the top-billed actor in this film, yet he did not actually act in this movie.

The acting for this film that he did was technically 0 minutes.

Alec Baldwin, Blake, 7:23 of 100:00 (7.3%), Glengarry Glen Ross, billing (third or shared first, I don't find querier has resolved in other comments):

George Clooney, The Thin Red Line (1998)

Albeit having a huge ensemble cast, in this 2-hour 50-minute feature he has less than maybe 2 minutes of screen time.

Question: What is the least amount of screen time, relative to the total running length, that the single highest-billed actor (or actress) has ever had in a feature-length, non-experimental film?  (For the purposes of this question, "screen time" includes time spent doing voice-overs.)

Top-billed actor with the least screen time

The Silence of the Lambs, One Night with the King and Game of Death and The Thin RedLine are just some of the films where a top-billed actor has very little screen time. As far as

There are a lot of films with actors/actresses who dominate the film, but actually have very little screen time.

The Silence of the Lambs, starring the joint top-billed actor, Anthony Hopkins.

23 of 100:00 (7.3%), Glengarry Glen Ross, billing (third or shared first, I don't find querier has resolved in other comments):

In the US historical epic One Night with the King from 2006, Peter O'Toole briefly appears in the prologue as the Prophet Samuel for "barely 30 seconds", according to Leonard Maltin's 2015 Movie Guide.

Of course, the problem with all of these is that they don't fit the scope of your question-in that the actors involved, whilst highly billed, were not the highest billed.

The Silence of the Lambs, starring the joint top-billed actor, Anthony Hopkin. Steve McQueen was the top billed actor in The Great Escape. Peter O'Toole briefly appears in the prologue of One Night with the King for "barely 30 seconds" George Clooney has less than maybe 2 minutes of screen time in The Thin Red Line. The movie Game Of Death (1978) stars Bruce Lee, well kind of. Bruce Lee was already long dead before this movie was released. Alec Baldwin, Blake, 7:23 of 100:00 (7.3%).


I don't know the answer.

But here's a potential candidate.

Unlike the aforementioned films that involved digital cloning of one character (Clone Wars, The Matrix, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), Buster Keaton physically acted out (from my count) 27 separate roles in his 1921 film

The Play House

In Bollywood film What's Your Raashee? , Priyanka Chopra plays 12 characters, depicting the signs of the zodiac.

Individual role played by the actress with there zodiac sighs are as below :

All twelve character have different characteristic then the rest, few also address social issues of India too and get sufficient scene time in the film, making it 211 minutes after the cuts and got criticized for length.

The actress was considered for Guinness World Records as the first actress to play 12 different characters in one film.

Film was a flop but actress got lot of praise.

Another film from India, Dasavathaaram also is bit close with 10 roles played by same character.

Deep Roy played all 165 Oompa Loompas in the hit film Charlie and the Chocolate factory.

Temuera Morrison was the basis for the clones seen in this scene from "Attack of the Clones".

I count approximately 5000 versions of him, albeit some in helmets.

Hugo Weaving was a lot of Smith.

An awful lot of Smith.

Kind Hearts and Coronets is a full length film where Alec Guinness plays eight members of the D'Ascoyne family:

Ethelred "the Duke", Lord Ascoyne "the Banker", Reverend Lord Henry "the Parson", General Lord Rufus "the General", Admiral Lord Horatio "the Admiral", Young Ascoyne, Young Henry and Lady Agatha D'Ascoyne.

He also plays the seventh duke in brief flashback sequences to Mama's youth.

From the 2013 Chilean comedy film " El Ciudadano Kramer " ("Citizen Kramer"), 24 roles for a single actor : Stefan Kramer as himself, and "Alturo Longton" (Arturo Longton) "Moreno Piñera" (Miguel "Negro" Piñera - brother of the President) "Hablo Zalaquett" (Pablo Zalaquett

) "Don Tatán" (Sebastián Piñera, President of Chile at the time) Rodrigo Hinzpeter Iván Fuentes Carlos Larraín (Senator) Camilo Escalona (Senator) Marco Enríquez-Ominami (Presidential candidate) José Antonio Gómez Fernando Paulsen Matías del Río Michelle Bachelet (Presidential candidate in 2013, actual President) Evelyn Matthei (Senator) Franco Parisi (Presidential candidate) Rafael Araneda (TV presenter) Kike Morandé (TV presenter) Diana Bolocco (TV presenter) Mario Kreutzberger (TV presenter, aka "Don Francisco")

Amaro Gómez-Pablos Martín Cárcamo (TV presenter) Karen Doggenweiler (TV presenter, wife of #9) Leonardo Farkas (Proposed presidential candidate)

Does the "Malkovich Malkovich" scene from Being John Malkovich count?

It's difficult to count precisely how many Malkoviches are in this scene; I counted 45 while going through shot-by-shot, but I may have missed a few and/or double-counted some.

These are obviously not named roles, so it may not count for what you're looking for.

Beyond this, Malkovich also plays three "characters" for substantial periods of time in the movie: Himself; Craig inhabiting his body; and Lester and his friends inhabiting his body, towards the end of the movie.

Several other characters "enter" John Malkovich during the movie, but they are not shown having control over Malkovich (just being spectators.)

Along the same lines as Michael Seifert's answer , I nominate John Simm in the Doctor Who episode

The End of Time, Part 1 and The End of Time, Part 2 , in which he appeared as every human on Earth , a total of more than six billion different roles .

Johnson George played 45 roles in a Malayalam film named Aaranu Njan

(Film name means Who am I?).

He currently holds the Guinness world record for playing most characters in a single movie .

He played roles like Mahatma Gandhi, Swami Vivekananda, Leonardo da Vinci, APJ Abdul Kalam in the movie.

Below is a movie poster showing different characters played by the actor.

In the movies Split and Glass, the actor James McAvoy plays a shizophrenic character, who manifests in up to 24 characters (7 of which are shown in Split and 9 in Glass).

Question: What is the most distinct roles played by the same actor within a single movie?

The most roles played by the same actor in a movie?

Johnson George  played  45 roles  in a Malayalam film named  Aaranu Njan. He currently holds the  Guinness world record for playing most characters in a single movie .   Next comes Buster Keaton who physically acted out  27 separate roles  in his 1921 film. Many other actors in both western and Bollywood films have played multiple roles, however, many of them are computer enhanced, using digital cloning.

There are a lot of actors that have played many separate roles in various films.

Buster Keaton, Priyanka Chopra, Alec Guinness, Deep Roy, John Simm,John Simm, Alec Guinness,  Amaro Gómez-Pablos, Martín Cárcamo and Michelle Bachelet, Stefan Kramer, Johnson George  physically acted out many separate roles in various films.