Although the other answers may be right when they say that it's a reference to the longstanding Brooklyn/Queens rivalry, as a native New Yorker, I think it is simpler than that.

In the geography of New York City, Brooklyn and Queens are neighbors.

They're both located on the western tip of Long Island.

As we can see, Peter 1 and Steve 2 have lived most of their lives less than 10 miles apart from one another .

It sounds like Steve's reaction to hearing that Peter is from Queens is simply a "Hey, we're neighbors!"

kind of thing, not a reference to any deeper significance.

Update:

My mother was born and raised in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and my dad was born and raised in Long Island City, Queens.

I ran the scene by them and asked them to explain why Cap chuckles - they both agreed: "Because they're neighbors".

For those who are interested, here's 20 Ingram Street, Spider-Man's house.

A family named Parker lives there in real life, and their next-door neighbors are the Osbournes 2 Unlike Spider-Man

, Marvel never gave Captain America a real-world address.

We know he was born in Red Hook, Brooklyn, but we don't know where.

He later moved into an apartment in Brooklyn Heights, but the apartment address - 569 Leaman Place - doesn't actually exist.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/20680/Wad Cheber stands with Monica

It's just to show us that Steve and Peter have a natural rapport, even when fighting on opposite sides.

This is likely just intended to be set-up for a later film when they will be required to work together; establishing a common ground (such as the fact that they both come from New York) early on helps that relationship build naturally.

It also plays into a joke in the second post-credits sequence; When asked by Aunt May how he got a black eye, Peter replies "From Steve".

Aunt May asks if it's a Steve she knows and Peter says "No, he's from Brookyln.

And his friend was huge.

Like, huge".

The joke here is that Peter is 100% telling the truth, even if Aunt May can't possible know what really happened from his line.

Lived all my life in Queens.

There's a bit of rivalry/respect between Queens and Brooklyn.

Kevin Smith pointed out in his podcast that Cap most likely recognized Spidey's New York/Queens accent even amidst fighting all the way in Germany.

I saw the movie in Astoria, Queens.

It was definitely a crowd-pleaser moment.

I found this on instagram and was amazed to see the reference (backward compatibility).

Adding to all the good answers and as @michael also mentions, it's a reference to the first Captain America movie.

Another example is the last fight scene between Cap, Bucky and Iron Man, in which Captain says, I can do this all day.

This exact same line was said by Steve (he wasn't Captain America yet), when he was being bullied in the first movie.

You got to be from New York City to understand that reference.

I'm from New York and that's my favorite line in the film; in fact in the entire MCU.

It's a very local thing, specially if you were born or raised in New York City.

For example if you grew up in Brooklyn, you never hung out in Queens, etc.

It's very simple.

Stop reading too much into it.

I'm from New York.

If I'm in an airport in Germany, and I ask someone where they're from, and they reply "Queens", the odds of meeting another NYC resident would be rare, so a chuckle and disbelief would be about the right reaction.

So Steve is basically acknowledging the innate New York brotherhood and Spider-Man's heart, basically saying, "Hey you kick butt.

Oh you're from Queens?

That's cool.

I kick butt too, neighbor, I'm from Brooklyn!".

In Captain America: The First Avenger Steve Rogers asks the doctor where he was from and he said Queens.

Then the doctor asked Steve where he was from and he said Brooklyn.

Maybe it was a reference to the first movie.

It's not about "superiority", Brooklyn over Queens, so much as it is about the rivalry and the fact that they're fighting (Queens and Brooklyn) literally on the OTHER SIDE IF THE WORLD and the rivalry STILL rears its head.

That's what makes it funny.

But if you didn't perceive that then it's probably "a New York thing".

Question: This is a conversation between Captain America and Spider-Man from the movie  Captain America: Civil War :   Captain America: You got heart, kid, where are you from?  Spider-Man: [Straining] Queens!  Captain America: [Chuckles in mild disbelief] Brooklyn!   I don't understand the real meaning of this conversation. Is it supposed to be funny? Is the "Queens" and "Brooklyn" means anything different here?

Why does Captain America chuckle when Spider-Man tells him which borough he's from?

The reference to Spider-Man being from Queens and Captain Americs'a reaction is really only undertandable to people who grew up in New York. It could be a reference to them being from neighboring zones or it could be to do with Queens/Brooklyn rivalry.

There is some mutual dislike/disrespect between the Queens and the Brooklyn. It's a very local thing, specially if you were born or raised in New York City"

New York City, Brooklyn and Queens are neighbors. There is some mutual dislike/disrespect between the Queens and the Brooklyn. It's not about "superiority", as opposed to "being on the world's surface", more than it is about those two boroughs battling. You got to be from New York City to understand that reference.
It's a very local thing, specially if you were born or raised in New York Cit


The Animatrix has both prequel stories, as well as concurrent stories to the Matrix.

One of the stories even becomes explicitly canon when the protagonist of it becomes a minor but important character in Revolutions.

Kid from Kid's Story shows up in Reloaded, but becomes important in Revolutions, when he helps save people during the Battle of Zion.

The story itself takes place between The Matrix and Reloaded.

There is no spoilers for Reloaded or Revolutions in any of the 9 short films.

The film is a compilation of nine animated short films, including four written by the Wachowskis.

It details the backstory of the Matrix universe, including the original war between man and machines which led to the creation of the Matrix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animatrix

Not sure if there are any spoilers per se, but all stories are grounded in the Matrix world.

The Animatrix provides a deeper background in the world of the Matrix.

It shows how other people experience the Matrix.

I don't think there are any (major) spoilers.

There are definitely references though.

The Animatrix will definitely improve your understanding of how everything is tied together.

The Animatrix serves as a canon source of information about the Matrix World.

It contains history of the Matrix - the rise of machines, the war, and why the Matrix came to be created, and humanity enslaved.

The others detail the world of humans - both in Matrix and outside.

Some show how some humans reject the matrix at a subconscious level - and how the machines try to continue to enslave them.

Some others show how the Matrix - like any computer program - has glitches - and the effects in world.

This is similar to how Neo sees a cat walk twice within the same door frame - this was a glitch - or a bug.

Others show the lives of Zionists as they train, and the challenges they face when they realise the world outside the Matrix.

The Animatrix serves to complement the Matrix, along with the video games which progress the story further after the films.

Ref - Matrix Explanation Let’s take a step back into what really happened in the world in the early 21st century.

This information is from the series called The Animatrix which takes a deep dive into what really happened.

Do watch

The Second Renaissance Part 1 & 2.

These short animated films were released much after The Matrix.

A synopsis from this is important to know as it is very consistent with the movie(s).

In addition to the other answers, the two mentioned stories from the Animatrix, are two very important prequels that sets the stage for The Matrix.

It tells us about how the AI was born.

What caused the war between Man and Machine.

Why the sky was scorched.

And most importantly, why the Matrix was created.

There is a continuous plot thread between "Final Flight of the Osiris", the game Enter the Matrix , and the film Matrix: Revolutions .

The girl in FFotO is delivering a message (about the coming Sentinels attack) to a postbox in the Matrix.

In the game EtM, the characters have received this message and are relaying it to the captains of all the hovercraft to call them to a meeting.

And in M:R they are attending that meeting.

Question: I've seen  The Matrix  when it first came out and now I wish to watch all the Matrix movies together in order of relevance including the  Animatrix  anime.   Does  Animatrix  somehow fit into The Matrix world that is depicted within the movies and are there any spoilers in the  Animatrix  that could reveal parts of the  The Matrix Reloaded  and  The Matrix Revolutions ?

How does Animatrix fit into the Matrix movies world?

The Animatrix serves as a canon source of information about the Matrix World. The Animatrix has both prequel stories, as well as concurrent stories to the Matrix. The story itself takes place between The Matrix and Reloaded. The Animatrix will definitely improve your understanding of how everything is tied together. The Animatrix serves to complement the Matrix, along with the video games which progress the story further after the films. The film is a compilation of nine animated short films, including four written by the Wachowskis. It shows how other people experience the Matrix. There is no spoilers for Reloaded or Revolutions in any of the 9 short films.

The Animatrix comprises prequel and continuation stories to the Matrix. The film is a compilation of nine animated short films, including four written by the Wachowskis. It illustrates how the rest of the world experiences the Matrix and serves as a point of reference for the Matrix World.


I think the show writers have made it pretty clear in the 'Behind the Episode' videos that Sansa simply doesn't trust Jon yet.

Jon was the bastard of the family.

Although it's the only family she's got, they were never close to each other.

From Sansa's point of view, she does not know how Jon would react to news of Littlefinger coming.

She cannot trust him to make what she deems to be the 'right' decision.

While we all know how awesome Jon Snow is, Sansa doesn't.

She knows he's family (if a bastard) and that he was Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, but she was never close to him at Winterfell and never saw his exploits at the wall.

Sansa held the reinforcements from Jon to ensure the numbers would be in her favour.

She knows Ramsay and the games he plays.

She knows (speculatively) that he will have total disregard for the lives of his men if it means he wins.

We see this play out, with archers raining arrows onto friend and foe.

In short: Sansa needs Jon to commit to the fight to ensure that Ramsay gets bloodthirsty.

If Jon knows about the reinforcements, he will not sacrifice free folk.

Sansa is becoming a shrewd leader.

Her time with Ramsay has made her pragmatic and unlike Jon and Ramsay

she is able to separate her emotions from the goal.

Remember the conversation between Sansa and Jon before the war.

She was asking jon if he won't ask for her advice as she knows Ramsay bolton far close then anyone?

Sansa might have told jon if he had shown interest(or believed) in taking her advice.

As in their conversation Sansa says: If you had asked for my advice earlier, I would have told you not to attack Winterfell until we had larger force or is that obvious,too?

And Jon replies: When will we have a larger force?

We've pleaded with every house that'll have us.

The Blackfish can't help us.

We're lucky to have this many men.

As she was knowing the army they had won't be enough and Jon won't take support from Petyr Baelish as he made Sansa marry Ramsay.

This is seeming most obvious reason to me why Sansa won't let Jon know about it.

I think that there are a few reasons for this: Little Finger cannot be trusted.

Ned learnt this the hard way.

He only does what he does so that he can benefit in some way.

Because of (1), and I may be under correction here, he doesn't want the help of Little Finger and he tells her this.

But she can see that Jon will need the extra men

so she does it behind her back.

It's a better story.

It conforms to the way things happen in Game of Thrones.

It conforms to the characters.

It was in the end, the better strategy.

Bolton's were defeated because they came to the battlefield instead of withstanding a siege.

They came to the battlefield because Ramsay Bolton 'knew' that his army will defeat Jon Snow's.

They were beaten because they were taken by surprise when Baelish arrived.

As to why Sansa didn't tell Jon, it was simply because of the way she is, this is the kind of person she has become.

After years in king's landing, and everything she has undergone with her marriages with Tyrion (yes it was horrible for her) and Ramsay, one thing she has learnt is that she won't under any circumstances let anyone else control her life anymore.

"I'm not going there back alive." .

She won't tell anyone anything unless it serves a purpose for her.

Sansa is no longer the naive girl who wanted to be a queen and to have little price and pricesses.

She has seen it all, been through it all.

She is a survivor.

She knew that Jon won't be able to beat Ramsay.

Jon fights with honor.

"Ramsay is the one who lays traps." .

She also knew that to beat someone like him, she needs someone like Peter.

She wants Ramsay dead and she is willing to use Jon's entire army as bait to draw him out.

"Sleep well" , she says after telling Ramsay he is going to die the next day.

She also knows her brother is not going to survive this battle and accepts it with steely pragmatism.

Sansa has in fact become, a lot like Peter Baelish.

Another point of view: What's in it for Little Finger?

Little Finger won't come to her aid if there's nothing in it for him.

In her secret letter, Sansa could have promised him the tittle of Lord of Winterfell, bonded by marriage.

Jon Snow won't let that happen.

Sansa is one of the few remaining and legitimate heir of Winterfell, and she knows she can't get there without Little Finger's military backing.

This is her best move, lets not let Jon get in the way.

I think, Sansa want to be "the savior" in a war, to gain respect and then to smooth her path to be the queen of winterfell.

My take is that she is somewhat embarrassed about her relationship with Baelish.

He betrayed her (and

Jon's) father, got her involved as a suspect in Joffrey's killing, killed his "wife" for her, overtly declaring his creepy you-look-so-much-like-your-mother love, and then sold her off to a torture-y demon of a man.

I am eager to see how him and Jon will get along, but I suspect he would not be as happy to see him as the occassion would suggest.

Question: Sansa Stark writes that secret letter to Petyr Baelish in  Season 6 Episode 7 of Game of Thrones, 'Broken Man'.   Why does Sansa Stark not want Jon Snow to know about getting help from the Vale during their conversation in Episode 9, 'Battle of the Bastards?'

Why does Sansa Stark not want Jon Snow to know that she had written a secret letter?

I think the show writers have made it pretty clear in the 'Behind the Episode' videos that Sansa simply doesn't trust Jon yet.  Jon was the bastard of the family. Although it's the only family she's got, they were never close to each other. From Sansa's point of view, she does not know how Jon would react to news of Littlefinger coming. She cannot trust him to make what she deems to be the 'right' decision. She knows he's family (if a bastard) and that he was Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, but she was never close to him at Winterfell and never saw his exploits at the wall. Moreover, Little Finger won't come to her aid if there is nothing in it for him. Jon won't let her marry Little Finger if that is what she is planning.

Sansa cannot trust him to make what she deems to be the 'right' decision

Sansa and Jon Snow were never close to each other. She does not know how Jon would react to news of Littlefinger coming. She cannot trust him to make what she deems to be the 'right' decision. Sansa knows he's family (if a bastard) and that he was Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, but she was never close.

Sansa could have promised Little Finger the tittle of Lord of Winterfell, bonded by marriage. Jon Snow won't let that happen. Sansa knows she can't get there without Little Finger's military backing. This is her best move, lets not let Jon get in the way.


We can see the answer in what happens immediately after.

It's textbook Ramsay manipulation, and it nearly worked.

Ramsay was surrounded by loyalists to Jon's faction who immediately aimed at him.

If he'd shot Jon, his men would have fired immediately without hesitation, killing him before rushing to try to save Jon.

But Jon, their leader, is still alive, and Ramsay's talking, not posing an immediate physical threat -

so they wait for Jon's order.

This gives Ramsay an opportunity to do what he does best: manipulate honourable fools, and exploit emotional weaknesses.

He challenges Jon to a one-to-one fight, a challenge no sane person would ever accept in these circumstances - but Jon is easy to manipulate and enraged from just having seen a big friendly giant get shot in the eye.

Jon charges, seemingly accepting the duel.

Jon's men don't know what to do.

This is duel,

right?

You don't interfere with duels.

If Ramsay had succeeded in shooting Jon here, Ramsay would get another opportunity to manipulate.

He could confuse Jon's men's sense of honour using the fact they'd seen him beat Jon in a one-on-one duel that Jon had seemingly accepted.

And a subtle detail: to my eye Ramsay seemed to be aiming at Jon's sword arm shoulder:

had he hit, he could even make a show of being merciful to a disablingly wounded Jon, putting himself in a good negotiating position.

Could it work?

Could he talk his way into exile, or possibly even divide what remains of Jon's ramsharkle army and turn the factions against each other (Wildlings and Night's Watchmen, Northerners and Vale knights)?

Maybe, maybe not - ill-disciplined leaderless men are unpredictable.

But he'd have better odds this way than if he'd simply shot Jon then been immediately felled by a hail of arrows (and possibly, ripped in half by an angry wounded giant).

On top of the sadistic nature people have mentioned already, Ramsay is a pretty good strategist.

He was probably thinking "If I kill Jon, it's me vs. a Giant and the men.

If I kill the Giant, Jon can be goaded to fight me one on one, which is the only way I can win here."

He had just seen Jon come running across a battlefield into range of his archers because he goaded him to try to save his brother, so he thinks he knows what Jon will do next.

Ramsay enjoys teasing people.

The show runners revealed that it wasn't until the moment his dogs were about to eat him alive that Ramsay realized that he had lost (an evidence for this was his cocky comment that he "still held Winterfell" even though his entire army had been swipe out by the Knight's of the Vale cavalry

and he had not one but two Starks knocking at his doorstep.

When he saw Jon looking at Wun Wun in a "gratitude, prideful" way, he resolved into killing the Giant because he figured it would cause Jon to react erratically (just like he did when he literally blew up his well-thought battle plan for trying to rescue his dead-man-walking brother Rickon).

The only difference this time around was that Ramsay stood no chance against his enemies, but he hadn't realized that.

His twisted, messed up mind did not allow him to process the thought that he had lost the battle and that he was about to die.

What can he achieve by striking Jon?

He might have missed it or killed him.

But he will surely going to be killed later on by the giant or by any random Wilding and soldier.

So not much gain.

He did the same with Rickon Stark in the same episode, he could have tried killed Jon , as he was on same distance as Rickon when he got killed.

Ramsay even tried to kill Jon Snow too after Wun Wun

but he got the shield on right time.

What he achieved by killing Wun Wun first?

Ramsay was same sadistic jerk and even near his deathbed he love playing with other people's emotion.

Trying to kill Jon Snow was no fun to him but giving him more pain was.

So he chose to kill Wun Wun first.

I think that Ramsay got cocky...

He had a bow and arrows, and Jon Snow was a bit of a ways off.

He loves to mess with people and hurt them by hurting others, so he probably thought, "I'll kill Wun Wun just to make Jon angry, then I'll shoot Jon."

But as we know... Jon grabbed a shield and made his way over to Ramsay and beat his face in.

So that plan didn't work out too well.

It's Ramsay's way of torturing, he thought that if he kills the giant first, he'll hurt Jon's feelings, especially that Jon was already looking to the Giant and thanking him for everything.

All what Ramsay was doing is teasing Jon, first by the letter in the beginning of the season, then killing Rickon, then killing the giant.

Also, I believe that Ramsay knew he was dead anyways, so he wanted to hurt Jon as much as possible before Jon kills him!

Question: In  Game Of Thrones S06E09 , after the battle, inside Winterfell, the giant is on his knees and Jon Snow is standing besides him when Ramsay strikes the giant in the eye with an arrow. The giant was already fatally wounded and was unlikely to get back on his feet. Why did Ramsay aim for the giant then and not Jon Snow?

Why did Ramsay strike him?

Ramsay killed the giant instead of Jon as a way of torturing Jon. Maybe Ramsay knew Jon was going to kill him, and wanted to torture him as much as possible before it happened

It's Ramsay's way of torturing Jon; he reasoned that if he kills the giant first, he'll hurt Jon's feelings, especially since Jon was already thanking the Giant for everything. All Ramsay was doing was teasing Jon, first with the letter at the start of the season, then with the murders of Rickon and the giant.


Famously from the opening credits of Star Wars it is set...

Essentially this is an equivalent to the fairy tale 'once upon a time' opening.

It tells us that it's not really important where or when the story is set.

There are however exceptionally tenuous movie links to the Earth - in that you see creatures like E.T. in the Republic council meetings:

However this is barely more than an 'easter egg' than a true linking to Earth in the Star Wars universe.

So I would have to conclude that the answer is 'no'.

Yes, although in all fairness more as a gag than as a serious canon fact.

Then again, Jar-Jar Binks is a serious canon fact, so who am I to judge canon?

I have discussed the links in detail in my answer to " Are E.T. and Star Wars in the same universe?

SFF Q&A .

I shall now shamelessly borrow from that answer the way J.J. Abrams borrowed from Episode IV :)

TL;DR:

Yes.

As a gag/easter egg/cross-merchandizing/friendly jest/whatever, Spielberg and Lucas have placed enough canon information in their universes to imply that E.T. really is an alien from a species in a Star Wars Galaxy.

E.T.'s species were officially called The Children of the Green Planet , their planet was called Brodo Asogi .

In addition, as documented in my SFF answer to " Are Star Wars and Indiana Jones the same Universe?

" , there is a second mention:

somehow, Indiana Jones's The Ark of the Covenant is strongly implied to originate fron...

Han Solo's Episode VII cargo ship "Erevana":

Another "easter egg" type instance of things related to earth being included in the movie is the person in the potential Gemini/Mercury spacesuit in one scene.

Thread discussing it here: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/80002/what-evidence-is-there-that-proves-disproves-there-was-a-gemini-earth-astronaut

But of course since this is a galaxy far away and

a long long time ago this is more of a costume budget issue than an in-universe reference to Earth.

While the Battlestar Gallactica series did make reference to Earth that they didn't know if it existed or not, in Star Wars, never is Earth mentioned at all.

That is different than saying that in the opening text it says "A long time ago, in a Galaxy far far away."

One might say that at some other point earth is mentioned, but no, it is never mentioned.

Curiously, by saying "A long time ago, in a Galaxy far, far away..." it does imply an audience that is being addressed.

So, it is told to an audience on Earth and the events happened a long time ago from our point of view and a Galaxy far from us.

Still, in no way does the movie ever make reference to Earth at all.

Several characters in Episode

I refer to humans - C3PO ("human-cyborg relations"), Anakin ("I'm the only human who can do it"), and a pod race announcer ("that little human being is out of his mind").

This is not a direct mention of Earth but Earth

may well be an origin of humans.

In the movies, there was no direct mention of earth.

So the answer to your movie-related question is "No".

But in the expanded universe, there were mentioned, that the Rakatan Empire found humans on some planet and spread them around the whole universe, but it was not the earth.

So in the movies, there is no direct answer where do humans come from, but in the extended universe, it is clearly stated, that humans are not from earth.

Question: In the Star Wars movies by George Lucas, is anything ever mentioned about Earth and the Milky Way Galaxy?

Does George Lucas mention Earth in "Star Wars"?

While the Battlestar Gallactica series did make reference to Earth that they didn't know if it existed or not, in Star Wars, never is Earth mentioned at all.  So the answer is no, Earth is never mentioned.

In Star Wars, in no way does the movie ever make reference to Earth at all. One might say that at some other point earth is mentioned, but no, it is never mentioned. It is told to an audience on Earth and the events happened a long time ago from our point of view. Still, in no way does the movie ever make reference to Earth at all.


Well, I have a theory about how this scene might have been filmed, but I have no sources to confirm this as it is a very old movie.

This rock can be a fake one, because using a real one will definitely hurt an actor.

Now, when the rock is thrown, actor takes a jump.

To make this look realistic, the timing and jump must be perfect.

If you take a close look, you can see that Charlie Chaplin just waited for the perfect time and made a jump (credits to @DrRDizzle we can see Charlie Chaplin's knees bending slightly.).

Such scene might have taken practices and takes for a perfect shot.

In addition to the fake rock theory by @AJ, it is quite possible that the rock did not travel the entire distance it appeared to.

Once the rock disappears off screen, there could have been some barrier to prevent the rock continuing.

This way, the rope would have enough weight to continue moving, but there would be significantly less weight pulling on Charlie Chaplin's neck.

Even if this particular trick is rare, it's conceptually similar to hanging scenes, which are abundant in westerns.

In fake hanging, the typical trick is to attach the rope to the hidden harness while the knot is just a decoration:

How is a hanging scene filmed?

In addition, the "stone" is likely to be light.

In our days, I'd say plastic.

Then, probably papier-mâché.

The key is to watch Chaplin's legs and the rope.

As the rock goes off-screen and the rope is getting close to taut, his knees flex.

At that point he clearly jumps into the water, with enough style (because he was an expert stuntman) to look as if he'd been pulled into the water by the rock.

If you watch the rope too, you see that there's no point at which it goes taut, and actually when he jumps into the water it goes completely slack.

This is completely clear when you watch it back repeatedly and analyse exactly how it's done.

For audiences though it happens fast enough that they don't see the knee-bend and jump, or think through the implications of the rope going slack.

As a result they buy into the scene, and no doubt some of the original audience asked the same question you just have!

You can also be sure that the "rock" is nothing of the sort.

For the stunt to be safe in water, the "rock" will almost certainly be balsa wood or something equally light, so that it doesn't genuinely sink afterwards!

Notice that the "rock" goes off-screen to ensure you don't think about that - and

notice that whilst Chaplin produces a very impressive splash from his pratfall, there's no splash from the rock, even though the rope could only let it go just off-screen.

Perhaps the rope is loosely fastened to the rock, and detaches when the rock has reached its limit.

I've watched it several times

and I think: the rock is firmly attached to rope, and the rope to Chaplin, albeit to his shoulder not his neck.

if you watch carefully, the rock reached the extent of the rope and was bouncing back -- you can see the rope go taut and then slacken.

the "rock" was made of some moderately light-weight material, most probably papier-mâché as soon as Chaplin felt the rope tauten, he hopped convincingly off the dock (the man was, after all, one of the great physical comedians of all time).

It's a cut.

It's two takes spliced together to make it seem like a single action.

Closely looking at the gif, i.e. the video, shows where there is a significant difference between the frames.

Frame 38 Frame 39

Every other frame is a subtle change from the last.

This one shows a significant difference.

Charlie's face jumps to a different position.

The other guy's hands do too.

The Rope seems to have been matted in.

The rock suddenly disappears.

Primitive Movie Magic at work.

Try lifting, let alone throwing a rock of that size and you'll understand how that was fake; it has just the right weight to pull the rope in a realistic way, and then Chaplin only has to jump at the right time.

In fact, notice that he does a little funny jump, not

a "rock&rope pull my neck suddenly and nearly breaks it" one, which would be the more real way.

Sorry, this is very similar to the top answer.

The rock could be fake and there could have been a hidden rope tied to a body harness on Chaplin that could have done the pulling from off-camera.

I'm not convinced

his posture and movements give enough evidence to prove conclusively that he jumped.

I'm not seeing enough upward force from his legs to justify the height and length of the jump.

Hence, I suspect a hidden rope pulling him from the side, off camera.

However, being pulled from the side by a hidden wire could easily explain the movements.

Question: In a scene from  City Lights  (1931), a man tries to commit suicide before Charlie Chaplin comes and saves him.  But the man accidentally ties a rope to Chaplin's neck and throws the rock into the water with some force.   How was this scene shot safely without breaking Charlie Chaplin's neck or injuring him in some other way?

How was this scene shot without hurting Charlie Chaplin?

The Charlie Chaplin scene could have been filme like a fake hanging. However, the key is to watch Chaplin's legs and the rope. As the rock goes off-screen and the rope is getting close to taut, his knees flex. At that point he clearly  jumps  into the water, with enough style (because he was an expert stuntman) to look as if he'd been pulled into the water by the rock. If you watch the rope too, you see that there's no point at which it goes taut, and actually when he jumps into the water it goes completely slack. This is completely clear when you watch it back repeatedly and analyse exactly how it's done. For audiences though it happens fast enough that they don't see the knee-bend and jump, or think through the implications of the rope going slack.

Hanging scenes are abundant in westerns. In fake hanging, the typical trick is to attach the rope to the hidden harness while the knot is just a decoration. The "stone" is likely to be light. In our days, I'd say plastic.

The key is to watch Chaplin's legs and the rope as the rock goes off-screen. At that point he clearly jumps into the water, with enough style to look as if he'd been pulled. If you watch the rope too, you see that there's no point at which it goes taut.


Watching the scene it seems that the talk about soft hands and lotion is mostly to give an impression to the other people in the store that nothing is wrong.

Notice how the dealer becomes very uncomfortable, starts stammering and clutching his hand and how he rubs it after Frank finally lets go.

He's no longer a confident salesmen at the end of the talk.

He is scared of Frank and is willing to lose a lot of money to make him go away.

It's not about "discussing a better price", Frank is intimidating the salesman by holding on to him, crushing his hand and the way he is talking (not the words, but the way he says them), while keeping up an appearance to onlookers that it's just a friendly discussion.

The conversation is only there to lengthen the time Frank squeezes Billy Tim's hand.

Frank will not let Billy Tim's hand free until he gets what he wants.

This prompts Billy Tim to lower and lower the price as his hand gets more and more painful.

It's more like keep the conversation going.

Also you can notice that he talked in lower tone.

So, it was just politely talking with the car dealer and making him take the price down.

Talking about lotion has nothing to do with the conversation.

It was rubbing the hand which possibly made the car dealer to get rid of this quickly.

So, he lower the price and Frank's trick worked.

Conversation: FRANK :

Yes, Denham, like a jean.

(they shake)

You know: you have lovely hands -- do you moisturize?

BILLY TIM:

I'm sorry?

FRANK:

I swear by it.

I try all sorts of lotions.

I went through a fragrance-free period last year, but now I'm liking this new brand fortified with rose hip.

My sister, you know, she uses the aloe vera with the sun screen built in... BILLY TIM: Uh-huh.

You said you'd be willing to pay in cash?

FRANK:

I did.

You know: they say cinnamon is wonderful for your pores.

Read that on the internet.

And that ideally you should be wearing gloves to bed, but I find that would interfere with my social agenda.

Problem is: I get a reaction to camphor so I can't use traditional remedies...

BILLY TIM :

If you could pay cash, I could probably drop the price a little.

To, say, seventeen...

(as Frank squeezes a little) ... sixteen each.

FRANK:

That would be lovely.

Including the lotion in this conversation just makes it silly and Frank just did this to politely force him to lower the price.

As others have said, it's an intimidation tactic to lower the price of the vans Frank wants to buy.

In America it's socially abnormal to hold onto someone's hand after shaking, especially in a business setting.

By bringing up "soft hands", Frank essentially has an excuse to keep holding the salesman's hand during the conversation.

While outside observers would see and hear them talking about soft hands, he's actually squeezing the salesman's hand to motivate him to lower the price, which is made most clear at the end of the scene when he intensely squeezes and

the salesman drops another $1000 off the price.

I think that it was introduced to make the dealer uncomfortable by implying predatory homosexuality.

Soft hands", holding the dealer's hands a little too long, it's all calculated to make the dealer feel threatened and therefore more likely to close the deal quickly without dickering.

Question: When Frank was talking to the car dealer in  Ocean's Eleven , he specifically mentions his soft hands, resulting in a better price for them for the car. Why? What is the background?

What was the purpose of mentioning the soft hands in Ocean's Eleven?

Watching the  scene  it seems that the talk about soft hands and lotion is mostly to give an impression to the other people in the store that nothing is wrong. Notice how the dealer becomes very uncomfortable, starts stammering and clutching his hand and how he rubs it after Frank finally lets go. He's no longer a confident salesmen at the end of the talk. He is scared of Frank and is willing to lose a lot of money to make him go away.  It's not about "discussing a better price", Frank is intimidating the salesman by holding on to him, crushing his hand and the way he is talking (not the words, but the way he says them), while keeping up an appearance to onlookers that it's just a friendly discussion.

The dealer becomes very uncomfortable, starts stammering and clutching his hand and how he rubs it after Frank finally lets go. He's no longer a confident salesmen at the end of the talk. He is scared of Frank and is willing to lose a lot of money to make him go away. It's not about "discussing a better price", Frank is intimidating the salesman.

It's more like keep the conversation going. Also you can notice that he talked in lower tone. Talking about lotion has nothing to do with the conversation. It was rubbing the hand which possibly made the car dealer to lower the price.


There is no need to watch any Harry Potter movie to understand Fantastic Beasts.

Here is why: Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them is not a prequel to all eight Harry Potter movies.

The Harry Potter franchise is set in the '90s while Fantastic Beasts is set in 1920's.

No one from Harry Potter exists in this era, except Albus Dumbledore.

And there are some references about magical creatures that can be found in Harry Potter books/movies

but you don't have to worry about it because you won't miss anything here nor you will feel lost during the movie.

But you will be entering a new established universe.

A Bustle article goes into greater detail as to why it's fine for newbies.

I think you can watch this as a stand alone movie.

Apart from a few references to the Harry Potter world in the movie (name drops of Albus, Hogwarts - total of around 10 small references through out the entire movie) etc., rest of it is completely new.

Its set in the 1920's era.

Before Harry Potter started.

So no, you don't have to watch the Harry Potter movies to understand this one.

It's a new experience even for HP fans (you would know the beasts they show in the movie if you read Fantastic Beasts library book before) Spoilers below as requested.

Hogwarts keeps coming up - also a my-school-is-obviously-the-greater chat comes up with the main protagonists

---Gellert

Grindelwald comes up.

You can even see the back of his head right in the start --- Dumbledore's name comes up.

One character asks Newt why Dumbledore favors Newt.--- Nifflers, Bowtruckles, Occamys, Diricrawls, Demiguise etc., beasts from 'fantastic beasts and where to find them' book from Hogwarts Library appear in the movie

---Seeker, Chaser reference comes up.. and few more references which I can't exactly recollect.

Yes, it is understandable without having watched the other HP films, but you might want to pre-explain certain aspects of JKR's wizarding world - about the separation of the magical & non-magical worlds, how the magical world has it's own government (specifically the Ministry of Magic), Aurors, Muggles, magical schools, the wizards' newspapers with their moving images and the dark/light wizards - you could use a Star Wars analogy here :-).

Mostly The movie does not explain the Deathly Hollows symbol, or that Grindelwald used it as his own symbol.

So anyone not familiar with the storyline from the HP books/movies

will completely miss the significance.

Other than the opening credits and one brief mention, Grindelwald doesn't come much.

So Graves being Grindelwald is a bit out of left field.

Other than that, everything is pretty well contained and explained.

The rest of the HP universe references do not hinder the plot.

Yes, I'd say so.

I've watched the movie.

The difference is Harry Potter is in Britain, and Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is in America.

Besides the no-maj and muggle thing, I guess you're OK.

Also, no-maj and muggle mean no magic.

Question: I am planning to watch  Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them  and asking this question in place of a friend who might give me company. But he has not seen any HP film before.  Can we understand  Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them  without watching any other Harry Potter film? Or do I need to watch any other Harry potter film for better understanding?

Is Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them understandable without watching any other Harry Potter film?

There is no need to watch any Harry Potter movie to understand Fantastic Beasts.  Here is why:  Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find  Them is  not a prequel  to all eight Harry Potter movies. The Harry Potter franchise is set in the '90s while Fantastic Beasts is set in 1920's. No one from Harry Potter exists in this era, except Albus Dumbledore.

Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find  Them is not a prequel to all eight Harry Potter movies. The Harry Potter franchise is set in the '90s, while Fantastic Beasts is in the 1920s. No one from Harry Potter exists in this era, except Albus Dumbledore. There are references about magical creatures that can be found in Harry Potter books/movies.


There is no explicit answer for it yet but there are many theories for it and most popular one is :

Both are same person.

From bustle.com speculation on the subject: French & Homer Are Different Versions Of The Same Person When French is sneaking around Prairie's home in the finale, for a moment he looks at himself in the mirror and sees Homer.

It could just be his mind playing tricks on him, but how would his mind know exactly what Homer looks like?

The show has already talked about multiple dimensions, so is it possible that when French was looking in the mirror he was seeing a multi-dimensional reflection of himself?

This would explain why French and Prairie are so drawn to each other and why he is so willing to go along with her out-there ideas.

Now that they have the 5th motion, they opened the gate and since Homer also has all 5 movements established, he is reaching out to French; as a link and channel has begun to form (across time and space which are merely physical boundaries not spiritual).

They mentioned that amnesia would be a side effect of multi-dimensional travel.

Maybe Homer travelled into a different dimension, where he is Fench and not Homer, and forgot all about his past life... until it started trickling back

French plays football and Homer (the 16 yr old gets a head injury from football).

Maybe French is a Homer from another dimension and he dies on the field later.

He also explains all those things about her father possibly being a bad person (he drowned her first).

Also, I noticed that Homer, in the story told by OA, when he was told to seduce the older lady, he was in the shower banging his head against the hard tile, just like when young blond steve does (he says I messed up

I messed up) after his dad finds out about the throat injury.

All of these characters align.

I think there is more to the story and how they maybe are going to die next .

Not meant to just save a school from a shooting.

I think he really did see himself in the mirror.

Also they don't remember most of where they go because they are gassed before they are killed over and over again.

I think the immediate implications are that there are correlations or juxtapositions between Hap's Captives and Prairie's new group that act as counterparts

that work in such a way to make the movements possible for Prairie to use... French and Homer share the idea of being young athletes, who both come to suffer head injuries, but obviously Homer's being an NDE, where French's is just a scrape from fighting with Steve.

French also has a correlation with Ranetta in the sense that his nickname is exotic and Ranetta comes from an exotic location, but Ranetta shares Prairie's extraordinary gift to play music, which solidifies the irony that Homer is used as bate, but then sleeps with her, betraying Prairie.

If one looks at Rachel, her vocal musical abilities tether her Buck, who sings in the school choir, but the story about her running away from her parents to raise her younger brother, whom tragically dies from a car accident, juxtaposes Jesse's story, as one of his parents died, the other left, and he's currently being raised [poorly] by his big sister.

Betty Broaderick-Allen or "BBA" has a cool name abbreviation like Prairie (The "OA") and both are "teachers" of sorts.

She also just lost her brother Theo, who was hard to handle, but finds her brother again in the forms of Steve and perhaps Jesse.

Steve also starts to find someone, the girl from detention, where he can be more of himself with, as she is more like him.

This is not unlike Prairie coming more into her own when she was held captive and finds and meets Homer.

The show's contrasts of counterparts is so beautifully sliced and isn't perfectly symmetrical.

In terms of the longer term implications, I think the series will take it's time with it.

I do think French believes he saw Homer in the mirror, making us aware that they share some things and that perhaps French plays a bigger role in terms of saving Homer at some point.

But I also know that Brit Marling has a 5-season plan and that she doesn't want to simply repeat herself.

So it may take a while to see the full magnitude of what this Odyssey and all

it's little parts bring.

Question: In the final episode of season 1, while wandering around Prairie's house, French looks in the mirror and briefly sees himself as Homer.  Assuming French even knows what Homer looks like, is he imagining this, or are we to believe this actually happened? What are the implications of either of those things?

Why did French see himself as Homer in the mirror?

Maybe the immediate implications are that there are correlations or juxtapositions between Hap's Captives and Prairie's new group that act as counterparts. French and Homer share the idea of being young athletes, who both come to suffer head injuries, but obviously Homer's being an NDE, where French's is just a scrape from fighting with Steve.

There are correlations or juxtapositions between Hap's Captives and Prairie's new group that act as counterparts. French and Homer share the idea of being young athletes, who both come to suffer head injuries. Rachel's vocal musical abilities tether her Buck, but the story about her running away from her parents to raise her younger brother. Jesse's story juxtaposes his story, as one of his parents died, the other left, and he's currently being raised [poorly] by his big sister.


At the end of the episode, Mycroft explained to his parents that she was no longer verbally communicative.

That is; she would no longer talk.

The only communication she appears to respond to is playing the violin with Sherlock.

Therefore, her ability to "program" people is no longer a threat.

Because it's the best place for her.

There is no place better set up than Sherrinford for Eurus.

As Mycroft says: There's a place called Sherrinford.

An island.

It's a secure and very secret installation whose sole purpose is to contain what we call the uncontainables.

The demons beneath the road?

This is where we trap them.

Sherrinford is more than a prison, or an asylum.

It is a fortress, built to keep the rest of the world safe from what is inside it.

As Sherrinford's residents are 'uncontainables' it is inevitable that there will be failure at some stage.

In this case Eurus' takeover of Sherrinford was a consequence of the governor ignoring Mycroft's direct orders: MYCROFT:

Has there ever been, against my express instructions, any attempt at a psychiatric evaluation of Eurus Holmes?

GOVERNOR:

Yes.

This error allowed Eurus to begin her takeover of the facility.

Finally, if Eurus cannot be kept at Sherrinford, then... where?

Though it is not explained in details, I don't think that it is a plothole.

First of all, Great Britain does not have death penalty, so Eurus has to be contained somewhere.

Of course, we know that the British government may employ assassins at time (Mary and her AGRA team for example), but it is unlikely that Mycroft would allow that.

Remember how powerful he is in the government ("He is the government" as Sherlock describes him in the first season).

So, Eurus has to be locked somewhere.

As explained in the episode, Sherrinford is the most secure prison in the Great Britain.

It is not perfect, but perfect security does not exist.

And, as in most security breach, the problem is not the technology (the Sherrinford facility) but a human problem.

With the precedent of the manipulation of the Governor that lead to his suicide in mind, everybody will follow Mycroft's directives, Mycroft included.

Also, we may consider that Eurus is not a threat anymore .

Or at least a lesser threat.

Indeed, look at the plot of the episode.

She didn't want to have a revenge on Sherlock, or mess with him, but she was looking for brotherly affection from Sherlock in her crazy way.

As said in the episode, Sherlock was his favorite when they were children.

She got jealous of Redbeard and kind of accidentally killed him.

Accidentally because it is clear that the riddle was only a way to play with Sherlock and get his attention.

Note that she used the graves with wrong dates that Sherlock loved as a key for her riddle.

In addition, the plane game is a metaphore of her situation, estranged from people, and a call for help to Sherlock.

As a sociopath, she is a danger to people, and may harm them.

But she now restarted a relationship with her brother, and with her parents, so she is now under control in Sherrinford.

Because, no matter how many times he breaks out, the Joker always goes to Arkham Asylum.

It's not a very satisfying answer, but the audience knows that Sherrinford is where [really] bad people go.

Why go though all the explaining that "Fordensher" is a super max security prison where all the really, really bad people go, when you already have a place that really bad people go.

To make matters worse to introduce "Fordensher" , you need to really differentiate it from Sherrinford.

What would make it different?

Sherrinford is already for people so "different" that they can't go to normal prisons, so what can Fordensher do differently enough from Sherringford that the audience could recognize the different places easily.

Take Prison Break for example (not one of my favorites

but it fits well here).

When they moved from "normal" prison to "Mexico Hell Prison" they were able to differentiate enough (even if it made no sense) that even a casual audience member would be able to tell that there was a significant difference between the first prison and the second.

You would need that kind of separation between Sherrinford and Fordensher or you risk confusing your audience.

The only other option is that Fordensher is a black hole that villains go to, and are never dredged up again for future plot usage, so there's no need to explain it.

Interesting.

The discussion seems to presume that Mycroft and Co. made the decision to return Eurus to Sherrinford and that they, not her, were in control of the situation.

I saw very little to persuade me of that presumption.

She is clearly not only smarter and more powerful, but patient and capable of allowing others to believe, erroneously, that they are in control of her.

Why should that have changed?

Sherrinford is her headquarters, it suits her purposes, and she has them escort her back there at the end of the show, allowing them to believe that they have won.

Question: My question is regarding Eurus (re)imprisonment in Sherrinford at the end of S04E03.  She has been described by Mycroft as an "era-defining genius, beyond Newton."  She also managed to manipulate one of the prison guards to kill himself and his wife, just by talking to him.   Why isn't Mycroft worried that this will repeat? Why was Eurus put back in Sherrinford, where she not only managed to break free from, but also had  complete control  over it at one point?

Why was Eurus sent back to Sherrinford?

First of all, Great Britain does not have death penalty, so Eurus has to be contained somewhere. Of course, we know that the British government may employ assassins at time (Mary and her AGRA team for example), but it is unlikely that Mycroft would allow that. So, Eurus has to be locked somewhere. As explained in the episode, Sherrinford is the most secure prison in the Great Britain.

Eurus is set up in Sherrinford because it's the best place for her. It's a secure and very secret installation whose sole purpose is to contain what we call the uncontainables.

Great Britain does not have death penalty, so Eurus has to be contained somewhere. Eurus is not a threat anymore, according to Sherlock. Sherrinford is the most secure prison in the Great Britain. The problem is not the technology, but a human problem, says Sherlock author Mark H. Sherlock .


Is it possible to follow Battlestar Galactica 2003 TV series without watching 1978 original Battlestar Galactica series?

Yes, definitely.

Although some of the basic concepts / names etc.

are the same, this is a complete reboot/re-imagining of the series.

You don't have to watch both, they are not related or have any sort of continuity, but you need to watch the 2 episodes mini series before watching the 2003/2005 version .

As someone who watched and loved the 1978 series as a teen...

No, you don't need to watch both.

They are actually surprisingly unrelated.

They have roughly the same central concept of a fleet which is fleeing genocide at the hands of the "Cylons", but that's really about where the similarities end.

The Cylons are completely different in the original show.

They are The Other.

Shiny robots with one evil scanning eye.

You could look at any character and know instantly which side they were on.

The result was kind of like a weekly space-based version of the Battle of Midway.

The new one making them look just like humans completely changes the show, adding a dimension of constant paranoia and psychological drama that was just not in there in the 70's (although as a teen boy, I'll admit it could have been in there

and I would not have noticed).

The fact that some of the Cylons don't even know they're not human adds a further element.

My personal suggestion would be that if you enjoy modern dark dramas with ongoing stories (eg: Arrow), then just watch the reboot.

If you'd prefer an old-school series with a lot of space dogfights where noting much changes at the end of any episode watch the old one.

If you've got oodles of free time on your hands, feel free to watch both.

In a really weird way, the reboot is also a sequel series to the original galactica series.

In Galactica 80, the fleet has found earth and they send a small contingent of children to live on it.

The cylons also send a small contingent (no idea why)that are humaniform cylons to hunt them down.

One of the big themes of the reboot is "all this has happened before and will happen again" which might indicate that the previous series were within canon of the new.

But that's really not worth thinking about.

this is "brains off" TV.

They don't have a plan, and neither did the writers.

Take it episode by episode and don't try connecting the dots, you'll be much happier about the series for it.

I have never watched more than a couple of minutes of the 1970s version but happily watched all of the 21st Century reboot.

As other have said, the 21st Century version can confuse people because it begins not with Season 1 but the Mini Series, which is possibly the best part and not to be missed, apart from showing the beginning of the story.

It stands up to repeated viewing as not all later Seasons do.

Also note some later episodes such as 'Razor' were released individually but are also included in the relevant series.

Tricia Helfer is especially brilliant and sad

she has not had other more prominent and varied roles since, unless I missed them.

Note two interesting prequels were made later with different casts, a TV movie set early in the Cylon War called Blood & Chrome and a series set before the Cylon War called Caprica.

There was another called sequel '

The Plan' featuring the original cast

but of more mixed interest.

Yes, absolutely, 100%, zero-questions...

In fact, for your own good don't watch the 1973 version.

It's frickin awful!

It is perhaps one of the worst pieces of garbage ever, but then again I could barely get through about 20 minutes of the first episode.

I might have watched a few minutes of one of the other episodes as well just in the hopes that it would get better...

It did not!

For the record I love the remake.

I think it was one of the better pieces of science fiction ever made.

There could have been some things done better, but overall it was spectacular.

I wish that they would do more spinoffs, or at least do full series of the spinoffs instead of just an episode or two.

I'd love to see as much of that universe as possible.

The point to the last few lines is that I'm definitely a fan of the story...just not the execution of the 1973 version.

Question: Is it possible to follow Battlestar Galactica 2003 TV series without watching 1978 original Battlestar Galactica series?

Can I watch Battlestar Galactica 2003 without knowing the original 1978 series?

You don't have to watch both, they are not related or have any sort of continuity, but  you need to watch the 2 episodes  mini series  before watching the 2003/2005 version .

As someone who watched and loved the 1978 series as a teen, you don't need to watch both, since they are unrelated

You don't have to watch both because they are unrelated and have no continuity, but you must watch the two-part miniseries before watching the 2003/2005 version.


I don't see this as much of a tv conceit.

The earmuffs usually used on shooting ranges do not go anywhere near blocking out all sound.

It is quite standard to carry on conversations while having them on

I've done so every time I've been at a shooting range with someone else.

I assume we tend to raise our voices a bit, but I don't think it's even all that much.

As a sports shooter of now almost 23 years I can tell you: It's not an issue!

You hear each other a bit muffled but still very well understandably.

You only have to raise your voice because of the gun noises around you, not because of the muffling by the ear protection.

We normally use this type here :

There are special electronic ear protectors that can do that.

Guns.com

The premise of electronic muffs is quite simple.

While the passive muff provides hearing protection, battery powered electronic components inside the electronic muffs include microphones, amplifiers and speakers that gather, amplify and transmit low volume sounds — like voices — inside the earpiece .

Price differences in muffs generally dictate quality of components and advanced capabilities.

For instance, lower cost muffs may have only one or two microphones and a basic stop-type amplifier that simply shuts off upon high decibel sounds.

This type of shutoff causes split second time lapses before the amplifier resumes and low tones are again transmitted to the ear.

Cheaper muffs with fewer mics often make it difficult to ascertain the direction of the sounds as well.

Higher end models use more advanced technology that allows the continuous flow of low volume sounds while at once blocking dangerous noises.

They also contain multiple mics and speakers, making it easy to determine the direction and distance of the sound, which is crucial in hunting, tactical and competition applications.

There's a more complex description & explanation at earplugsstore.com

One thing to note is that the sound of a gunshot and the sound of 2 people talking have an entirely different frequency, volume and length.

The human voice has a frequency of around 85-250 Hz, a volume of around 60 db and usually a length of a couple of seconds.

A gunshot from a small caliber weapon is

around 150-2500 Hz in frequency, has a volume of around 130-160 db and usually lasts only a fraction of a second.

These are sounds with entirely different footprints and as such can relatively easily be attenuated independently.

There is in fact a study from Finland: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7761796 , that states that large-volume earmuffs can be used to protect against gunshot sounds.

Earmuffs for hearing protection are designed for just that: hearing protection.

They are intended to bring volumes down to a safe level that won't cause injury or damage the wearer's hearing.

Each model is rated for a given reduction in volume, listed as NRR (noise reduction rating), generally in the range of 20-40 decibels.

If they blocked out all sound, they wouldn't be useful for their normal use cases, such as shooting ranges, airport tarmac, construction sites, and other noisy areas.

These areas have other sounds that are important, such as cease-fire orders, conversation with coworkers, and so on.

The non-total nature of hearing protection muffs often surprises people who try to use them to block out quiet but distracting noises, such as nearby conversations or music.

I know of no passive device (i.e., not producing white noise or other sound to drown out the outside noise) that can do this.

Question: In  How I Met Your Mother S02E01 , Robin & Marshal are shooting in a shooting range and having a conversation.   How can the conversation be audible to them when they've still got the ear muffs on?

How can Robin and Marshal hear each other, with the ear muffs still on?

There are special electronic ear protectors that allow you to hear while wearing ear muffs. can do that.  While the passive muff provides hearing protection, battery powered electronic components inside the electronic muffs include  microphones, amplifiers and speakers that gather, amplify and transmit low volume sounds — like voices — inside the earpiece .

There are special electronic ear protectors that can allow hearing.  Electronic muffs include microphones, amplifiers and speakers that gather, amplify and transmit low volume sounds. They also contain multiple mics and speakers, making it easy to determine the direction and distance of the sound. The muffs can be used in hunting, tactical and competition applications.


The director, James Gunn, has confirmed that the sequel takes place 2 months after the original movie....

so 2014 which apparently dates it before Civil War

(but see below).

However, we don't know the dates of the other MCU movies.

Kevin Feige to Comicbook.com

Yeah, knowing that outside of the Guardians franchise, we don't necessarily always date the movies.

You don't always know, we don't say, '2012, 2013...' We do in the Guardians because you do the math and 1988, and it's 26 years later.

But we never say, 'Oh, this takes place in 2018, this takes place in 2017.'

But it was important for the story that James wanted to tell that they're still relatively fresh in their new group.

James Gunn has gone on record to state 'only a couple of months': How long after Vol. 1 does Vol.

2 take place?

Around a couple of months.- A couple of months EARTH time or, maybe it's, like, years, out in space because of science fiction?

Like a couple of months Guardians-time.

Like, if Peter Quill gets a haircut once a month, he'd have two haircuts between films.

Most MCU films take place at their equivalent 'time of release'; meaning the real world gaps between the films release schedule apply to the in-world chronology of the MCU.

GOTG2 is the first film to break this trend.

James Gunn admitted his mistake http://in.ign.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-1/108210/news/james-gunn-acknowledges-small-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2

And yes, I know I made a mistake.

People have written and asked me, and I'll own up to my mistake because Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.

2 theoretically happens in 2014 which is before [Captain America Civil War].

And Stan Lee in the movie says, ‘That time I was the Fed Ex guy,’ which is what he is in Civil War.

I screwed up; I wasn't thinking.

That’s all that is.

The hint is that Stan Lee is something along the lines of a nanny cam for the Watchers.

And Guardians 2 is not the first movie to break the timeline as released theory.

It is my assumption that the Watchers know all and see all whether it has happened yet or not.

The Watchers are an integral part of the Marvel Comic stories call What If?.

In the What

If?

Comic books the Watcher talks about being everywhere and nowhere.

He tells the stories that will , can and might happen if certain events take place in a particular order.

Many of these stories take place in alternative time lines and different Marvel Universes.

It is possible that even though Guardians Vol.

2 takes place before the events of Stan Lee working for Fed Ex, and the events of the Civil War, that it has been witnessed by the One True Stan Lee, who in turn tells the Watchers about it.

Think of the Watchers as Celestial time travelers.

They only witness, they do not interfere or persuade events they only Watch and observe.

That's my take on it.

Maybe I'm wrong but its a good theory.

According the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki : Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.

2 Guardians of the Galaxy 2 takes place between October 17 2014 - Battle of Sovereign - This is the opening scene of GotG2.

October 19 2014 - Battle on Ego's Planet - This is the final scene of GotG2.

Captain America: Civil War Captain America:

Civil War takes place between June ? 2016 - The Lagos Catastrophe June 10th 2016 - Clash of the Avengers

This would mean that in GotG2 Stan Lee hadn't been a FedEx agent and wouldn't be for nearly 2 years.

Stan Lee

There are 3 possible explanations for Stan Lee's cameo in GotG2: Some sort of deus ex machina time travel - which doesn't exist in the MCU .

The appearances and roles of Stan Lee aren't related in the MCU.

This is much more likely given his variety of jobs and that he was poisoned in The Incredible Hulk , although he didn't die .

It's also possible that this is a clone of Stan Lee, perhaps Lan Stee ?

Question: Some people say  Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2  takes place a few months after the first one (2014), which means before  Civil War . If that's the case,     How is Stan Lee telling stories to the trio of Watchers about him being a FedEx agent, which takes place in 2016 (after Civil War)?

When exactly does Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 take place in the MCU?

According the  Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki :  Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2  Guardians of the Galaxy 2  takes place between   October 17  2014  - Battle of Sovereign - This is the opening scene of GotG2. October 19 2014 - Battle on Ego's Planet - This is the final scene of GotG2.

S0: According the  Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki :  Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. Guardians of the Galaxy 2  takes place between   October 17  2014  - Battle of Sovereign - This is the opening scene of GotG2.


First of all, it's more likely that David simply disguised himself as Walter rather than swapping bodies.

The reason that David went along with the humans' plan to kill the Xenomorph was so that the humans would go into hypersleep, trusting him to actually be Walter instead of David.

That way, he has free reign over the thousands of people in stasis on board to continue his experiments without putting himself or two of his other test subjects at risk.

I think David saw it as a test for the Xenomorph.

The only way to gauge how close to "perfect" his creation is, is to test it.

He was in a good position to watch the Xenomorph and see how it reacted and tried to kill the remaining crew members.

With any type of creation, organic or machine, the creators will always want to test it to see what needs to be improved.

I don't think David was overly concerned with pretending to be Walter at this point in the movie.

If the Xenomorph killed the remaining crew then he gains control of the ship, if the remaining crew kill the Xenomorph then he "helped" and has their trust.

Either way, he comes out of it with control of the ship.

David didn't seem to believe that the Xenomorph was a threat to him so being left along with it on the ship wouldn't be something he was concerned about had it successfully killed the crew.

There's no evidence that David had any control over that xenomorph.

He could have wanted it off the ship just as much as the others.

The xenomorph could have ruined the ship or him as well.

He wanted to live and wanted the ship and human cargo intact for himself.

David didn't switch bodies, you can tell because he still has the damage to his face.

I'm surprised he managed to short and dye his hair in such a short time.

Equally perplexing is why Daniels didn't notice that David wasn't Walter, especially while she was helping him staple his face back together; You'd think she'd notice that he wasn't self-repairing like he should....

Also worth noting is that David was missing the nail hole under his chin.

In my opinion, it was way to obvious that David had replaced Walter especially the way they cut away from the fight...

David's ultimate goal was to create life.

Specifically, life that is "better" by some subjective measure than his own creators or their creators (Engineers).

Everything else is secondary to that goal.

He even cut off his own hand to impersonate Walter, that is how much nothing else mattered to him.

Think back to the scene where he shows the captain his experiments.

He tells him he really wants to show him his successes, downstairs: he then says the eggs are waiting... for what?

A host, obviously, as we all know from previous movies.

He started out with a single host, Elizabeth Shaw, who was dead long before his creation was perfected.

He needed another human to be the host to the facehugger to see what it would do.

This is why he broadcast that song, to lure spaceships to the planet so he would have more hosts.

He learns that the ship is a colony ship, with hundreds of humans in cryosleep.

Jackpot.

Practically infinite fodder (hosts) for breeding the perfect organism.

Keep in mind that so far, he only had two human hosts to work with and had great success: the ship has a hundred times as many.

Helping the crew is a means to an end: gaining control of the passengers on the colony ship.

He could have revealed his secret early, except the crew already figured out that the xenomorphs use humans as incubators.

They saw an alien burst from one of their own (the second one to be infected early in the movie, I do not remember his name), and Daniels saw his "artwork" showing aliens being born out of humans.

It is not a great leap for them to suspect that David wanted the sleeping colonists for experimentation, or that he meant them harm at the very least.

They may have even sacrificed themselves to stop him, or instructed Mother to lock David out of being able to control the ship, jeopardizing his greater plans.

Helping the crew gained their trust, even if it meant killing his creation.

That is okay, however, because their trust is crucial to his plans: get the crew to go to cryosleep willingly, rendering them incapable of interfering.

Once that is accomplished, he has hundreds of unwilling hosts for his xenomorphs as well as alien embryos representing the successful culmination of years of experimenting.

Why sacrifice everything for a single alien when he could have hundreds of aliens?

Maybe even better aliens, given enough time.

Sometimes it is better to lose the battle in order to win the war.

I understood it in such a way that if he disobeyed the remaining crew, or lied to them, and they somehow didn't get killed too quickly, Daniels (or Tennessee in case of the former's death) would understand what is happening and, as the captain, could inform Mother (the computer system of the Covenant) that David is a threat.

So, David would be risking getting locked in where he was without any authority over the ship, which wouldn't be very good for him even if the crew died.

So he chose to sacrifice the pet in order to be able to go on with his experiments witn higher probability.

Question: Why did David (in Walter's body) help kill the Xenomorph onboard the Covenant?  Couldn't he have it kill the rest of the crew and then trap it in one of the chambers?

Why did David help on-board of the Covenant?

The reason that David went along with the humans' plan to kill the Xenomorph was so that the humans would go into hypersleep, trusting him to actually be Walter instead of David. That way, he has free reign over the thousands of people in stasis on board to continue his experiments without putting himself or two of his other test subjects at risk. David's ultimate goal was to create life. Specifically, life that is "better" by some subjective measure than his own creators or their creators (Engineers). Everything else is secondary to that goal.

Instead of swapping bodies, it's more likely that David simply disguised himself as Walter. David agreed to the humans' plan to kill the Xenomorph in order for them to fall into a state of hypersleep.

David's ultimate goal was to bring life into the world. Specifically, a life that is "better" than his or their creators on some subjective metric. Everything else is a secondary thought for achieving that goal.


As shown throughout the film, the Predator has only killed armed opponents.

At this point in the film Arnold has put up a great fight against the Predator and is currently unarmed.

The Predator looks him over much like a hunter might take time looking at a prize kill before firing a shot.

The Predator disarms himself and then fights Arnold hand-to-hand, a "fair" fight instead of just killing defenseless prey.

(It's been a long time since I've seen the film, so can't remember exactly when/how the Predator stops using weapons).

A couple of other reasons (besides the already mentioned one: Dutch was unarmed at the time so the Predator chose to disarm himself and to engage in melee combat):

Dutch was a fantastic adversary; he was clearly the strongest, the smartest, and he lasted the longest among all the preys.

The delay in killing was in part to show some sense of respect .

Dutch was also the last of the group : the Predator was probably milking the hunt because if it killed Dutch, it wouldn't have another foe (for a while at least).

In combination with the first point above: the Predator knew it wouldn't get such a great foe like Dutch again, possibly forever.

As another line of reasoning: The predator is sometimes mocked as the dentist-on-safari among alien invaders.

With all previous kills it had more opponents.

So it killed them off instantly and with all its high-tech gadgets to avoid the risk of being outnumbered/caught off-guard.

Dutch (Arnold's role) was alone in the end.

So the dentist-on-safari Predator tried to prove to itself what great a hunter he is.

And did it go well...?

Man, Predators really suck, if looking at them like this...

You mean this scene?

The Predator collects the skulls of his prey as trophies, so he was probably checking if Arnold's skull was worthy of his collection.

After that he removes his helmet and goes without weapons, to make this hunt more challenging since he would be lowering himself to the technical level of his prey.

The others were way too easy to kill, so perhaps not as good as a trophy.

Answering the last part of your question: "Did checking Arnold's head mean something?"

I always thought that the predator examined Arnold to try to understand the reason why he wasn't able to see him (the mud).

Arnold still had sections of his face covered in mud so the Predator "wonders" how these sections are not visible to him and others are.

Question: In the movie  Predator  (1987), near the climax, when the Predator finds Arnold, it did not try to kill him immediately. Instead, it goes near him and checks his head and removes its helmet (I am assuming that it would be its helmet).   Why did it not kill Arnold immediately as it killed everybody else?  Did checking Arnold's head mean something?

Why did the Predator not kill Arnold immediately as it killed everybody else?

Dutch was a fantastic adversary; he was clearly the strongest, the smartest, and he lasted the longest among all the preys. The delay in killing was in part to show some sense of  respect . Dutch was also the last of the group : the Predator was probably milking the hunt because if it killed Dutch, it wouldn't have another foe (for a while at least). In combination with the first point above: the Predator knew it wouldn't get such a great foe like Dutch again, possibly forever.

Dutch was a fantastic adversary. The delay in killing was in part to show some sense of  respect. The Predator knew it wouldn't get such a great foe like Dutch again, possibly forever. Dutch was also the last of the group, so the Predator was probably milking the hunt because if it killed Dutch, it would have another foe.


The technique is specifically named in the film, as the literal meaning of the word matches well with it.

Following is a dialogue from early in the film, for reference: COBB: What do you want from us? SAITO: Inception. ... SAITO: Is it possible?

ARTHUR:

Of course not.

SAITO: If you can steal an idea from someone's mind, why can't you plant one there instead?

The remainder of the film deals entirely with a specific plot to do so, its planning and execution and ambiguous success.

Saito intends to disrupt a power conglomerate from becoming a virtual monopoly, using inception on the heir apparent to the conglomerate owner's estate.

As you explained, Inception is an event that is a beginning; a first part or stage of subsequent events.

In this movie, lead protagonist Dominic Cobb(Leonardo DiCaprio) has got a task to implant an idea into Robert Fischer's subconscious mind by going into his dream.

And that person will have a life and act according to what has been implanted into his mind.

Therefore, in this case, inception is just an activity to plant an idea into someone else's brain to start a chain of events.

They're planting an idea in someone's mind by convincing them that they came up with it themself -- the "inception" of a thought; where does it come from?

What really puts it there?

That's the theme that all the main characters struggle-with, with their own life choices and the consequences of others' choices that they have to deal with, or the tasks they're trying to complete.

It revolves around the central question of "what started this?

", because that could be how you answer "how did we get here?", which ultimately also leaves you wondering "what do we do next?".

Nij's answer covers well the in-universe explanation of what "inception" is in the context of the film: using the dream-tech to enter someone else's dreamworld and plant an idea that they come to believe is their own.

This is explicitly exposited by Saito.

However there also exists a meta-level to the titling and, by extension, the theme of the whole film.

Inception is very much like some of Nolan's previous films in that it tries to evoke aspects of the topic at hand; both Insomnia and Memento are prime examples of this, evoking feelings of the titular insomnia and the confusion of disordered memory suffered by their protagonists.

Inception goes one step further, concerning itself with the idea of lucid dreaming and the ability to (at least feel like you) control your dreams.

Cobb's dialogue with both Ariadne-

when he's training her in dream construction- and Fischer-

when he's conning him into believing he's his dream security- are actual techniques for lucid dreaming: notice the strangeness of the dream, always be questioning reality, question how did I get here?

Aside from necessary film techniques that could be interpreted as dream-like (cuts, for example) and the things explicitly shown to be part of the dream, the film's ambiguity as to the outer layers and whether Cobb's entire experience is a dream is left ambiguous.

This serves the main purpose of the film: to incept its audience with the ideas that promote lucid dreaming.

The film experience lulls people into the experience of dreaming, but leaves them with the questions of "what is reality?"

and "how can I be sure I am not dreaming?

" While we don't have nearly as much uncertainty about our reality as when we're awake- mainly due to the equivalent tech not yet existing- the questioning should be sufficient to trigger lucid dreaming in some people.

Wiktionary defines inception as The creation or beginning of something Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the only one that is convinced that in constrast to stealing information through dreams it is also possible to implant information.

He explains that this cannot be done directly though, but that one must plant a seed in the form of an idea or feeling that then will grow into thoughts and finally change that persons behavior.

Thus Inception refers to this initial implanting of an idea.

He knows this because... ..

he tried that method with his wife and implanted her with the idea that the world she lives in is not real.

He did this to get her out of the dream world.

But that idea developed to such a strong conviction that even when she was in the real world she still was convinced that it was a dream and killed herself to "wake up".

Question: Inception means:    An event that is a beginning; a first part or stage of subsequent events.   But the  movie  talks about humans dreaming & lucid dreaming etc.  So, why is the movie titled  Inception ?

Why was the movie titled Inception?

Inception is very much like some of Nolan's previous films in that it tries to evoke aspects of the topic at hand; both Insomnia and Memento are prime examples of this, evoking feelings of the titular insomnia and the confusion of disordered memory suffered by their protagonists.  Inception goes one step further, concerning itself with the idea of lucid dreaming and the ability to (at least feel like you) control your dreams.

Inception is very much like some of Nolan's previous films in that it tries to evoke aspects of the topic at hand. Inception goes one step further, concerning itself with the idea of lucid dreaming.


Aamir Khan was 51 when he played the role of a 19 year old boy in Dangal .

From Bollywood Life article

So Aamir Khan has done it again what he does the best.

The PK actor has gone through a drastic makeover for his upcoming film, Dangal, in which he will be seen going through three different stages for he will play the role of a 19-year-old, 29-year-old and 55-year-old.

Below is the image of him as 19 years old.

Another example, Amitabh Bachchan was 67 years old when he played the role of a 12 year old boy suffering from a rare genetic disorder called progeria in Paa . From Wikipedia plot summary , Auro (Amitabh Bachchan) is an intelligent and witty 12-year-old boy with an extremely rare genetic disorder called progeria.

Mentally he is twelve and very normal, but physically he looks five times older.

Though, in this case, the character he played was supposed to look like an old man.

Shirley Henderson was around 37 when she played Moaning Myrtle in the Harry Potter movies.

Born 1965, appeared in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets which came out in 2002 and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire which came out in 2005.

Stockard Channing (born 1944) played teenager Rizzo in Grease (1978) at the age of 34.

Robert Redford was 48 when The Natural was released.

Granted he played a 35 y/o for most of the movie, but he plays a 19 y/o pitcher on a way to a tryout in the prologue.

Ferris Bueller's sidekick Cameron was played by 29-year-old Alan Ruck in Ferris Bueller's Day Off .

Alan Ruck was born in 1956, and appeared as Ferris Bueller's trusty high-school friend Cameron in the 1986 movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off .

Mr. Ruck was probably not 30 during filming, since movies are always shot months or even years before they are released.

*Thanks to Joe for the comment on the original question that led to this answer.

( Fun fact:

I've bumped into Alan Ruck twice in my grocery store in Studio City, CA.

He even said "hi" once because he could see how star-struck I was.)

There is a very popular Mexican comedy TV show named " El Chavo del Ocho " (1972-1979), in which all the characters are played by adults even when they are playing children's roles.

I understand that some people may consider it a parody, but truly it is not.

It may be actors portraying children, but they are not parodying them: within the El Chavo's universe they are not pretending to be children, they are children.

Roberto Gómez Bolaños (aka Chespirito) was the creator/writer/producer/director of the show, and he also played El Chavo, an 8-year-old boy who escaped from an orphanage and lives in the apartment #8.

Chespirito was born in 1929, and the show concluded in 1979.

So in the last season, he was an 50-year-old man portraying an 8-year-old boy (42 years difference).

Here's one from Japan: The lead role in My Love Story! , a major production from a major studio, was played by Ryohei Suzuki .

The character is 15 years old throughout (no flashbacks or early life scene setting), but at that time Suzuki was 32 years old, so a 17 year difference.

(I've also just thought -

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button:

Brad Pitt was 44 when he played BB at 12 years old - I can't remember if he appeared at an earlier age, though)

Wet, Hot American Summer

(the Netflix show not the film) had multiple actors in their 40's and early 50's portraying teenage and early 20's characters.

Granted

this was part of the joke, but for your question this should work (unless you would qualify this as parody).

For example, Michael Showalter was 45 when the series was filmed.

And he has confirmed they are indeed teens here :

"We thought it was funny that in the original we played a bunch of thirty year olds playing teenagers.

Now we're in our forties and our characters are even younger," Showalter said in a statement.

If not the show, then the movie, which was not done to the absurd level as the show would still count.

This example will be very hard to beat for anyone who cares about historical accuracy.

In the 10 May 1980 episode of Fantasy Island

My Fair Pharaoh/The Power

the "My Fair Pharaoh" part had the protagonist going back in time to meet her hero Queen of Kings Cleopatra VII Philopator.

Cleopatra's brother and enemy King Ptolemy XIII Theos Philopator (62/61 BC to 47 BC) was portrayed by Michael Ansara (born 15 April 1922, died 31 July 2013) who was thus aged 58 years and 25 days when the episode aired and was probably 43 or 44 years older than Ptolemy and 3.8 to 4.07 times as old as Ptolemy when filming his scenes.

This is an example of a middle aged man portraying a character arbitrarily depicted as an adult despite being one of the most famous child rulers in history!

So this could be the extreme example depending on whether you go by Ptolemy's historical age or his unspecified adult fictional age in the episode.

Although he is not the oldest in these answers, he is playing a fairly younger role in Hannah Montana .

Jason Earles plays his role as a 15 years old kid, and can you believe he was on his 30s?

Though he also appears as an elderly version of the character in the framing story at the beginning and end of the film, (then) 40-year-old Martin Short played a 10-year-old in Clifford .

The film was a comedy, and the casting of an adult actor in the role of a young child was surely intended to be humorous, but it's never specifically highlighted as a joke in the film--it's played more or less straight.

If we take the premise of the movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Button , then Brad Pitt born 1963 played a teenager in 2008 at some point or another in that movie.

Question: There's a common trope in Hollywood where  teenagers are played by adult actors . But which TV show or movie set the absolute record in terms of the age difference between the role and the actor? To clarify:   The character played must be a teenager, so younger than 20 years old  The portrayal is done in a serious manner - not as a parody, or a "what if" clip, or a dream, etc  It must be a live action film or a TV show

Who was the oldest actor to play a teenager?

Many adult actors have played teenagers in films including Aamir Khan, Amitabh Bachchan, Shirley Henderson, Stockard Channing, Michael Ansara and Brad Pitt.

There are plenty of actors who have played the role of youngers.


Since agents can inhabit any "bluepill" person in the Matrix, the freeway poses a few issues.

Yes, you can move quickly from one distant point to another, but that's of no benefit to Trinity, Morpheus, or any other awoken Matrix users.

On the freeway you're locked into a narrow corridor with exits only every mile or more, and any car near you can become a weapon in the hands of an agent.

In the first film, we see that the preferred movement method of Morpheus, Trinity & friends is to keep their business relegated to places in the dense city, and when escaping agents, try to lose them in alleys or maze-like building interiors.

Going up roofs or around corners, their goal is to put obstacles between them & the agents as quickly as possible, because all they need is a spare moment to find an exit while the agents are busy trying to find them again.

I think that what @Ross said was the most accurate:

Yes, you can move quickly from one distant point to another, but that's of no benefit to Trinity, Morpheus, or any other awoken Matrix users.

On the freeway you're locked into a narrow corridor with exits only every mile or more, and any car near you can become a weapon in the hands of an agent.

But I'd also like to add a few points of my own.

In the first movie, hidey-holes and sewers are where they prefer to hang out.

In a world where any earthly force can be turned against the "red pill-ers" without repercussion, a long, exposed stretch of road, driving vehicles that are several ton weapons in the wrong conditions, and are moving too quickly to maneuvre well, it's basically a death trap.

Anything from shipping trucks to the armed forces can be leveed against them.

In fact, we see two agents, when hand to hand and weapons combat fail, take over the shipping trucks and crash them into each other in order to kill the "red pill-ers.

" There are also no hard lines from which to escape the Matrix, which is the only proven way of "winning" against the Agents.

Combine all this, and it's easy to see where an exposed highway full of strangers is suicide.

Well, its probably mostly to add to the drama of the movie, however we can also consider that the agents move a lot faster than the plugged-in humans, and would therefore have a lot quicker reaction times ("You moved like they do")

And you tend to drive fast on a freeway.

Secondly, its easy to get killed on a freeway, and the agents are not afraid to dies.

Thirdly, its easy to get on a freeway, and block someone in, as it becomes a bit of a rat maze/trap.

The movie uses visual cues to give you the answer to your question: they're trapped by high concrete walls & frequent wide overpasses that cover you in.

They're effectively in a tunnel positively congested with enemies, potential enemies, and the normal obstacles of traffic.

The freeway wouldn't be suicide if they were on it covertly, but when you're being pursued in a world fully controlled by your pursuer, your only escape is exit (land-lines, not accessible in a car chase), solitude (the opposite of a congested freeway), or anonymity (which is already out the window).

Morpheus' advice to Trinity was to not think of escape in spacial terms, i.e. getting "away", because inside the Matrix there is no "away".

We're instinctually geared to think in terms of outrunning predators, so if you're not careful, in the heat of the moment you could head onto the freeway thinking that pure speed is your ally.

But it's not, it means nothing in the Matrix.

The only advantage people have is unpredictability, to make a choice that can't be planned for and reach safety before they can cut you off.

The freeway is the opposite of that.

It could be that you are farther from an "exit" (out of the matrix) when you are on the freeway.

As I recall, all exits require land lines.

Question: In  The Matrix Reloaded  the following dialogue happens between Trinity and Morpheus during a car chase:   Trinity: You always told me to stay off the freeway.  Morpheus: Yes, that's true.  Trinity: You said it was suicide.  Morpheus: Then let us hope that I was wrong.   What's Morpheus's reason to stay away from the freeway?

Why did Morpheus tell Trinity to stay off the freeway?

The freeway wouldn't be suicide if they were on it covertly, but when you're being pursued in a world fully controlled by your pursuer, your only escape is exit (land-lines, not accessible in a car chase), solitude (the opposite of a congested freeway), or anonymity (which is already out the window). Morpheus' advice to Trinity was to not think of escape in spacial terms, i.e. getting "away", because inside the Matrix there  is  no "away".  We're instinctually geared to think in terms of outrunning predators, so if you're not careful, in the heat of the moment you could head onto the freeway thinking that pure speed is your ally. But it's not, it means nothing in the Matrix.  The only advantage people have is unpredictability, to make a choice that can't be planned for and reach safety before they can cut you off.

In the Matrix, Trinity are trapped by concrete walls & frequent wide overpasses that cover them in. They're effectively in a tunnel positively  congested with enemies, potential enemies, and traffic. Morpheus' advice to Trinity was to not think of escape in spacial terms, because inside the Matrix there is  no "away" The only advantage people have is unpredictability, to make a choice that can't be planned for and reach safety before they can cut you off. The only escape is exit (land-lines, not accessible in a car chase), solitude, or anonymity.