It's a deliberate directorial device.

We're experiencing the world through Walt and Jessie's eyes, so it allows us to appreciate their confusion, suspicion and fear through the powerlessness they feel when events are unfolding around them - with little understanding and consequent lack of control.

We're left to interpret the body language (of which 70% of communication arises) and the odd words that are similar in both languages.

Just as we would in the same situation. shudder

I've only seen the show as the DVD box set, so the original showing may have been different, but some of the scenes are subtitled, and some aren't.

This doesn't seem accidental, or sloppy

- like everything in the series, it has meaning and it adds to the development of the story.

The most powerful examples of this are two scenes with the Cousins.

At the end of S3 06, Gus meets the Cousins in the desert, in a very tense confrontation.

It's not subtitled, but it doesn't need to be.

We know the Cousins want to kill Walt, and we know Gus needs him alive, at least for the time being.

They argue about it, Gus says something that makes them think...

then he says Hank's name, very clearly.

And we know that he's given them Hank, to kill, instead of Walt, and the credits roll.

The very next scene (the first scene of S3 07) is subtitled throughout.

The Cousins, as small boys, squabble over a toy, and one (Marco) runs to their uncle (Hector) to complain, and says he wants his brother (Leonel) dead.

Hector calls Leonel to him, and plunges his head into a barrel of water, holding him there, asking Marco if that's what he wants.

Marco pummels Hector desperately until he releases Leonel, and asks him tearfully if he's all right.

Hector tells them: 'Family is all'.

Not only does this tell us why the Cousins, and the cartel, are such implacable enemies...

it also horrifies us to see the innocence of two little boys who we know will become utterly evil and remorseless.

But the entire scene would be incomprehensible without the dialogue, so the subtitles are essential.

You have not really said who "they" is, but on the Breaking Bad Wiki as well as the Blu-ray they are shown.

I have the DVDs and watch them with the subs on, and some of it is important.

The setup for Danny Trejo's character's murder was somewhat important, or at least allowed you to understand it better.

The "experiencing the world through Walt and Jesse's eyes" bit is BS.

If Jesse and Walt aren't even in the scene, what would it matter?

And, like I said, some of the conversations are important to the plot lines.

It's not like they're reading the weather report or something, the dialogue does matter.

As for why the original episodes weren't subbed at the time...?

Well, there are plenty of Spanish speakers in the U.S. now.

I guess they figured half their audience would get it and half wouldn't.

It always kinda bugged me that there's a SAP setting for your TV, but no way to translate Spanish to English.

Note that the Season 4 (so it's not the cause of your specific issue)

Blu-ray has a glitch where several Spanish-language scenes are supposed to contain English subtitles, but the subtitles don't appear unless you manually enable them through the menu.

Rather than being burned into the image, these subtitles are just another subtitle track, and it's supposed to be enabled by default, so that even when you turn the subtitles "off" altogether, these subtitles appear for the Spanish-language scenes.

Due to the bug, the subtitles do NOT appear if you simply put the disc in your player and hit "play."

Instead, you have to enable the full English subtitles via the menu, then turn them off again.

The English subtitles will then appear for the Spanish-language scenes as they should.

Question: I am a huge fan of  Breaking Bad  and I am currently watching season 3.  One thing that I have noticed is that there are several scenes where characters speak in Spanish - some of these scenes are quite important for following the story - but they never show language translations or subtitles.  Why is it that?  What is the reason for not translating the Spanish dialogue for the viewers?

Why don't they show subtitles for the Spanish dialogue?

This is not your specific issue but, the  season 4 Blu-Ray has a glitch where several Spanish language scenes are supposed to contain English subtitles but, they don't appear unless you manually enable them through the menu.

Several Spanish-language scenes are supposed to contain English subtitles. The subtitles don't appear unless you manually enable them through the menu. English subtitles do NOT appear if you simply put the disc in your player and hit "play" Instead, you have to enable the full English subtitles via the menu, then turn them off again. The English subtitles will then appear for the Spanish scenes as they should.


The use of monikers such as M and Q is, IMO, more to do with tradition and traditional anonymity than secrecy.

(See my answer to another Bond question for more on this.)

You can see colleagues mingling socially (the opening scenes of Licence to Kill come to mind) and Bond pops up to M's flat on a couple of occasions.

M, Q, and Miss Moneypenny are all invited to Bond's wedding in OHMSS, and the scene, IIRC, begins with "Your Royal Highnesses".

I'd say that this out-of-office mingling isn't done without knowledge of their real names.

Furthermore, M is often a well known political appointee just like the head of the real MI6.

The first M was a Sir Miles Messervy.

James Bond too has an alias within MI6—he is 007.

I don't think/consider Moneypenny to be a codename.

(The question of why Bond does not use an alias outside MI6 is a good one.

While the correct answer to this is, of course, "because it's the movies", there is a rather feeble in-universe explanation for this.

James Bond's front when he is out on the job is that he is an employee of Universal Exports, a shell company created by MI6.

Presumably, this also explains his frequent travels abroad and general worldliness.

However, when this alias does not suit his purposes, he happily takes on other personae such as that of Sir Hilary Bray (OHMSS), James St. John Smythe (aVtaK), et al.)

While one would expect a "secret agent" to always use a cover, James Bond is not a secret agent:

Intelligence organizations have complete and detailed files on him.

Most bad guys know who he is, what kind of firearm he carries, and how he likes his drinks.

The bad guy usually tries to kill Bond as he arrives in town.

When he investigates someone, he almost always meets them socially first—a gentlemanly introduction perhaps to learn the other side of their persona, or gather information useful to plot later espionage.

But they always know he is 007 James Bond.

Apparently his actions are reported worldwide in mass media, like when he was "killed" in

You Only Live Twice .

If he is any kind of secret agent at all, he is an "open secret agent".

Bond does use an alias in several of the Bond films as detailed in this article ; Movie AliasFrom Russia with Love David SomersetYou Only Live Twice Mr. FisherOn Her Majesty's Secret Service Sir Hilary BrayDiamonds Are Forever

Peter FranksDiamonds Are Forever Mr. JonesDiamonds Are Forever Klaus HergescheimerDiamonds Are Forever Burt SaxbyThe Man With The Golden Gun Fransisco ScaramangaThe Spy Who Loved Me Robert SterlingA View to a Kill James St. John SmytheA View to a Kill James StockThe Living Daylights

Jerzy BondovThe World Is Not Enough Dr. Mikhal ArkovDie

Another Day Van BierkCasino Royale Arlington Beech

I'm going to throw out my own thoughts.

Wikipedia states that In the first draft of Casino Royale he decided to use the name James Secretan as Bond's cover name while on missions.

This approach was clearly discarded and for several books he keeps the name Bond.

If memory serves however his identity as James Bond and 007 are kept separate so for the most part only a few key members of the secret service are aware of his position within the organisation.

In the early films this trend is continued although he introduces himself as "Bond, James Bond

" it's very rare that villains are aware of his job.

After Sean Connery's line in the Doctor No (1962) the character was never going to introduce himself any other way!

The franchise is the "James Bond" series.

To have the main character introducing himself using a variety of names in each film (with different actors) would be extremely confusing to first time and casual viewers and watchers.

In order to keep the films simple and avoid confusing viewers this approach of keeping his position in MI6 secret rather than his name has been maintained.

In short - James Bond uses his real name because the filmmakers want to maintain the famous name of the character on screen.

His safety comes from the fact that the people he encounters on his adventures are unaware (except for a few exceptional villains) that he is 007.

Interestingly enough, there are other indicators that suggest that "James Bond" becomes the name of the new agent designated for the 007 slot, so that would logically provide the alias from his real identity...and anonymity for a few missions until an enemy agency picks up on the name.

However, given tech these days, a permanent alias wouldn't do much good anyway, since cameras and databases everywhere are going to verify who he is at light speed.

The trick is to just not let people know where you ARE, and that's always been his style, and something that right pisses off his employers regularly.

He just doesn't go through the trouble of the ID when he's expected.

Remember, as the reboot proved, everyone knows his name from the start...

but, quizzically, he's also a new agent in the role, showing the two kills he needed for 00 status.

M also says "orphans make the best agents," which hints at more than one orphaned naval intelligence officer donning the role.

They're very cagey about the whole thing, but the clues are there.

Question: In the James Bond universe most characters go by a code name M, Q, the various 00s, In Skyfall Silva is a made up name.  Others such as Tanner, Robinson and Moneypenny, Trevelyan we're not so sure but we've got no reason to believe they're real.  However Bond uses his own name - we've even seen the grave of his parents to confirm this.  Why does Bond use his real name and (as far as we know) no one else does?

Why does James Bond use his real name?

James Bond uses his real name because the filmakers want to maintain the famous name of the character on screen.

James Bond is not a secret agent. Bad guys know who he is, what kind of firearm he carries, and how he likes his drinks. When he investigates someone, he almost always meets them socially first. If he is any kind of secret agent at all, he is an "open secret agent" if not a "secret agent" at all. He always meets people socially first, perhaps to learn the other side of their persona.In short - James Bond uses his real name because the filmmakers want to maintain the famous name of the character on screen.


One of Tolkien's themes is the appropriate use of power , and in his universe, power comes from your inner nature .

You cannot—or should not—obtain more power through any artificial system, because that just distorts your nature.

For example, we have Aragorn who usually prevails just by showing up and being all Aragorny.

He doesn't make speeches, he just exudes this natural authority (or even semi-supernatural powers) that make people want to follow him.

This is nobility, in Tolkien's view—some people are just born better.

Others, like lesser men and Hobbits, have a lower status, but can play their roles with equal faithfulness to this principle.

So, what about Gandalf's power?

If you read the supporting materials, you learn that he is really an angelic being clothed as a mortal.

The Balrog is a being of the same order.

So, in Tolkien's morality, Gandalf can reveal all of his power when in battle with an equal—the Balrog, or Saruman.

In fact, when Gandalf gets his promotion to being the White, he has the natural authority to even cancel Saruman's power.

It would be immoral for Gandalf to use his power directly against lesser beings, even when that would do good.

Instead, he must use his power more indirectly, to convince the people of Middle-Earth to unite.

Saruman is depicted as having succumbed to this temptation.

Frustrated with the disunity among the peoples of Middle-Earth, he decided to create an artificial system that would be strong enough to defeat Sauron, namely his industrial revolution around Orthanc, yielding the abomination of the Uruk-Hai.

And as he became interested in power for its own sake, he became a tool of Sauron.

I happened to read this here - Link

This question has a very large answer.

Actually, the Valar (powerful angelic beings living in Valinor across the Great Sea) had decided after the Akallabeth (fall of Numenor) to not interfere in Middle Earth directly.

However, due to the rising power of Sauron, they sent six to Middle Earth to assist the Free Peoples - first Glorfindel the Elf, and then five Istar ("Wizards") who were actually Maiar (lesser angels).

They took the form of old men as they landed.

They were Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, and two Blue Wizards.

They were forbidden from using there true powers by the Valar, as they were NOT to take direct action against Sauron.

Now, the Balrog was not in Sauron's service.

It was a fallen Maia in the service of Morgoth (the earlier Dark Lord).

Morgorth's fall had seen most of these devils destroyed, but some survived, and the Balrog, better known as Durin's Bane, hid under Moria.

After being aroused by the Dwarves, it drove them out, and gravitated evil toward itself (including orcs).

Since the Balrog was not allied with Sauron, Gandalf had the permission to use his full strength to destroy it, especially as they had equal powers.

That is why he only uses his "magic" powers against Durin's Bane.

It was due to this restriction on his innate power that Gandalf could not use his powers before, ot to the Fellowship's benefit.

Gandalf is both meddeling and hands-off, this is part of what makes him an interesting character.

For instance, for as powerful as he is, don't you think he could have devised a better way to get to Mt. Doom rather than just walking/horse back?

Sure, but the journey wasn't up for him to decide, it was for the rest of Middle Earth.

The Balrog, if you look into Middle Earth's back history, is actually more related to Gandalf than the rest of the beings on Middle Earth, both having been angelic beings at one point.

Since this balrog was going to interrupt the happenings of Middle Earth Gandalf had to seriously intervene.

Gandalf has always been powerful, but he only expresses that power when absolutely necessary.

Interesting that you should say that.

In the books he actually does.

In the snow when they were passing over Caradhras, the rest of the Fellowship, tried and failed to make a fire, so Gandalf reluctantly uses his magic to start a roaring fire by which the fellowship could warm themselves.

Gandalf is uneasy for the next few hours because he believes that it will make it easier for the Orcs to track them.

His exact words were: "I have written 'Gandalf is here' for all to see."

So my understanding, metaphors aside, is that he uses his magic sparingly in fear of being tracked, there are after all, only four good wizards in the world at that time.

The Balrog was a powerful magical creature and was a "foe beyond any of [them]".

In this situation Gandalf had to turn his dials up as it was the only option.

His mission was to inspire and assist, he was not permitted to take over and fight everyone's battles for them.

Question: Why did Gandalf only use his magic powers against the Balrog in  The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring ? Why not before? Could he have used that kind of firepower earlier to the Fellowship's benefit?

Why did Gandalf only use his magic powers against the Balrog? Why not before?

Gandalfs mission was to inspire and assist, he was not permitted to fight everyon'e battles for them bu the Balrog was a powrful magical creature. So, in this situation Gandalf had to use his full powers.

Balrog was a powerful magical creature and a "foe beyond any of [them]". Gandalf had to turn his dials up as it was the only option. His mission was to inspire and assist,he was not permitted to take over and fight everyone's battles for them.


Internet searches for Cheesecake Factory waitress salaries range from $27,000-$33000.

This may or may not include tips, but tips are shared with the kitchen.

As you note, Penny freeloads quite a bit.

Her car has had the engine-check light on forever.

Her apartment is not flashy - the elevator hasn't worked in 7 years.

The PhDs across the hall are researchers, not professors, so their salaries may be quite average, and Sheldon keeps a roommate because he needs a driver.

Surely there are plenty of waitresses renting average apartments in California.

Additional Info ( 9/23/13 ) On the episode entitled "The Cruciferous Vegetable Amplification," Penny owes Leonard for several takeout dinners plus a month's rent which comes to "a little over $1400."

I found a potential answer to how Penny gets by here which explains a bit about California labour law and factors in the tips she would earn while working at the Cheesecake Factory: Just because she is a waitress

doesn't mean she doesn't make a decent income.

I know a waitress at an upscale restaurant that makes considerably more than I do as an engineer.

Let's do a little back of the envelope math: Penny works at the Cheesecake Factory.

At the Cheesecake Factory, appetizers are around $9, entrees around $15-$20, desserts around $9 and drinks around $6.

I'm there periodically and for two people the bill is easily $50-$60, often more.

So, let's pretend Penny serves 2 person tables (3-4 is probably a more accurate number).

Let's say she serves 5 tables an hour

(I think average is 6).

If her Cheesecake Factory is anything like the ones here, it is busy all day.

The Cheesecake Factory is very high volume.

Let's say she works full time. ($50 per table)*(15% tip)*(5 tables per hour)*(8 hours per shift)*(5 shifts per week)*(50 weeks per year) =

$75,000 per year.

My understanding is that California requires a minimum salary for tipped employees of $8 an hour.

That's an extra $16,000 per year.

So, at a gross income of up to $91,000 per year, Penny would be making more than Howard does.

Now, to be fair, we know that Penny is not very good at her job, so she is probably not doing that well.

This is a very old TV sitcom question.

In multiple shows the protagonists live in apartments that are way beyond their means.

Often, the apartments are huge or luxurious and in neighborhoods (mainly Manhattan) where the rents are astronomical.

Sitcoms are farce, not real life.

The producers create spaces that are visually striking and easy to film around from one point of view; the camera never moves.

She lives beyond her means because theproducers want her to.

P.S. Notice that the Cheesecake Factory where she works is far more low rent than the restaurant is in real life; because the producers want it that way.

Unlike Sheldon and Leonard, she doesn't have student loan debts.

She doesn't go out much

and when she does, it's mostly to her job (where she gets a discount).

Her car isn't new and needs repairs, so she's most likely not paying off a car loan.

In comparison, Leonard's crew go to comic cons, buy movie trinkets, stay up with the latest electronics, have nice cars, probably have years of student loan debts, and also eat out for the majority of their meals.

So to live the lifestyle (and probably keep lots of savings)

that they want, it makes sense for them to have a roommate.

As it's stated in several episodes, Penny mooches off the other characters.

She eats their food and use their wifi.

She seems to live paycheck to paycheck, and doesn't have savings like they do.

I work on tips as a bartender, so I understand the struggle.

Not to mention that we later find out in season 8 or 9 (when Penny, Leonard, Sheldon & Amy) play a "truth or dare" kind of game, that Penny has substantial credit card debt that she was hiding from Leonard.

And there's no way Penny is making anywhere near 90K or even 75K a year.

She might clear 50K if she was working at a really high end restaurant, but she's an indifferent server at a chain restaurant.

Question: In  The Big Bang Theory , How can  Penny  afford a  one bedroom apartment  on a waitresses' salary?   She doesn't seem poor and lives off with free food and WiFi, right?

How can Penny afford a one bedroom apartment on a waitress salary?

If Penny works full time she would be making an estimate $75,000 per year plus an extra $16,000 due to the extra $8 per hour for the minimum salary for tipped emplyees . She can eaisly afford her apartment seeing that she's making more than Howard is.

Just because she is a waitress doesn't mean she doesn't make a decent income. A waitress at an upscale restaurant makes considerably more than I do as an engineer. California requires a minimum salary for tipped employees of $8 an hour. So, at a gross income of up to $91,000 per year, Penny would be making more than Howard does. But, we know that Penny is not very good at her job, so she is probably not doing that well.


Each Jedi uses a lightsaber that works for their own preferences.

For instance, Asoka Tano (in The Clone Wars ) handled a lightsaber differently than most Jedi .

She originally used "a reverse Shien style grip."

And later "she crafted a shoto" to use with it.

(The "Shien" grip is holding the lightsaber so the blade is on the side of the hand with the little finger, instead of with the thumb, as is usually seen.)

The Jedi recognize a number of types of lightsaber combat and each Jedi will work with a style and grip and lightsaber that works best for them.

Every difference in the configuration—even the length of the saber—produces a different set of advantages and disadvantages.

A double light saber has the distinct tradeoff that pointing one end toward the opponent risks the other end hitting yourself.

Likewise, a single saber of say 20 feet length instead of the usual five or so would be a disadvantage in close quarters: striking the ceiling, walls, etc., causing structure side effects as well as draining energy from the weapon as well as the user.

As an Epee fencer in the real world, I favoured a weapon with the traditional French style grip (long handle, heavy pomel).

Many people, including my old coach, consider the more modern "pistol" grip (short handle, moulded to the hand, no pomel) to be superior, but the french grip gave me access to certain moves which complimented my style and are impossible with the more powerful but more restrictive pistol grip.

Conversely the pistol grip does suit many people's style and they might find my sword hard to hold on to and lacking power in parries.

The same weapon which is a major advantage in the hands of a proponent of one fighting style is a major liability in the hands of someone whose style it does not suit.

An additional thing to the answers above mine, a double lightsaber has less control and requires a lot of spinning.

If handled correctly, it is fierce and offensive, and can be hard to defend against.

But the downside of this fighting style is that there are less options/moves to manoeuver with; since you don't wanna hit yourself with the other end (like wallyk said).

With that also comes the fact that when spinning, there are also gaps/openings in your defence that a fast enough opponent can use to his advantage.

A double-bladed lightsaber (saberstaff) isn't an inherently Sith design, but has been long associated with them.

One of the reasons that not very many Jedi use it is because it is an exotic weapon that only a few can teach (according to The Jedi Path ).

It also depends on the preferred style of Jedi.

Count Dooku, while a Sith, used a saber with a bent hilt to enhance saber to saber combat.

As poepje said, saberstaff maneuvers generally include a lot of spinning, but this doesn't mean there are gaps in the defence.

In Dynasty of Evil , Darth Bane's apprentice, Darth Zannah, uses a saberstaff to defend against Bane's brute force, creating a nearly impervious defense.

It looks cool, but it's an inherently terrible design for a weapon.

This design, dominated by a long metal hand grip, is impractical in most senses.

One of the first things an attacker would strike (either on purpose, or accident) would be the center of the weapon, causing it to split in two pieces.

This is clearly evidenced by Darth Maul's battle with Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn in episode 1.

What more, in order for the weapon to continue functioning after being severed (as-in the case of Darth Maul), the weapon would need two of everything (two crystals, two power sources, two on/off buttons, etc...), and they'd have to be placed in perfect symmetry in preparation for the weapon to be cut in two and still function.

This built-in redundancy only adds to the complexity of the weapon, without providing any real additional benefits (you basically are designing it to be cut in half, and hoping that when it does happen, it's right down the middle and not off-center, which would render half of the weapon totally useless).

For these reasons, it's far more practical to carry dual light sabers (with traditional standard grip), or use a single light saber as most Jedi do.

The double bladed lightsaber is a sith design and that is why nearly all jedi reject it's usage, other then as a training tool.

The double bladed lightsaber is referred as a sith design "

Since the time of Exar Kun"

In the book of sith on paqe 85 published in 2013.

Question: This question always kept coming to my mind. Why don't they use double light saber to their advantage?

In Star Wars, why didn't all the Jedi use the double lightsaber like Darth Maul?

The double lightsaber is a sith design and that is why nearly all Jdi reject it's usage, other than as a training tool.

The double bladed lightsaber is a sith design and that is why nearly all jedi reject it's usage, other then as a training tool.


When Jor-El jumped to retrieve the codex he stripped off his outer clothes and wore a black "activity suit".

My impression was that the SuperSuit was a customised version of this design (notice that many of the Kryptonians did indeed have cloaks).

As to whether it's more modern - that's difficult to answer without knowing the details of Krypton's fashion, there's no reason why it couldn't have been an amalgamation of Krypton/Earth styles.

As to how it appeared on a ship 18,000 years before Clark arrived on earth.

Jor-El's consciousness ran the ship, given this was a seeding ship (and could so grow Kryptonians)

it's not unreasonable to assume that it could clothe, feed and supply them too!

My assumption was that the ship made the suit to Jor-El's specifications.

I personally don't believe the ship created the suit....

After Jor-El's death, Lara places his clothes (including the family crest or 'S' symbol)in a display case that closes up...

I like to think the superman suit on the 18,000+ year old ship, was the clothing of one of the El family ancestors, that was part of the exploration into the stars and died in the process.

I think the suit was just the clothing at the time and was possibly placed into a display/storage case like Jor's was by Lara.

Maybe Kryptonian ceremony of remembrance?

I believe the Consciousness of Jor-El simply 'presented' the suit to Kal rather than creating it.

This seemed better to me, as it shows how proud Jor-El is of Kal, to pass the suit down...and how the family crest of 'hope' would mean something worn on Kal...

a badass protector of earth.

A comic was released before the movie in which it was shown that a member of house

El (Kara El) was on that space ship which was sent to explore other worlds thousands of years ago but crashed due to damage taken by it during fight between Kara Zor-El and Dev-Em which also explains presence of skeletons of kryptonions whose cryogenic pods were shut down by Dev-Em.

In the movie, Krypton, the invasion on earth, and the archive history all show a similar design in terms of costume.

Many of them have cloaks, as well as symbols and runes prominently displayed.

Being a colonial ship, the Kryptonian craft was shown to be highly developed in terms of provisions and functioning.

Further, Jor-El's consciousness was the one controlling the ship.

Thus, it can be fairly assumed that the suit was 'constructed' by the ship as per Jor-El's programming, which he then presented to Kal-El.

It was Jor-El's key that contained all the coding and consciousness that gave the design to the suit.

It might just be an assumption, but since the Kryptonian technology gave out the idea of simple mechanisms and entities giving rise to complex implementations (the 3D faces or projections etc.)

the ship created a suit as per the programmed instructions.

This also can provide the simple answer to why the suit perfectly fit Kal-El.

When Jor-El is talking to Kal-El in the ships control deck.

Remember, the scene where he's explaining Kryptonian history in 2 minutes or less?

He explains to Kal-El that several ships, "like this one" were sent out to explore the stars.

Kryptonian civilization has been around and intact for 1000s of years.

The ship was a colonization ship from a time when they aspired to live among the stars beyond the bounds of Krypton.

I hope that answered your question.

Simple.

Like Sirithil stated, but simply put; when Clark placed his key that came with to earth, inside the ship that was already there it uploaded Jor-El's AI and the AI had the ship to make the suit.

Jor-El's consciousness was uploaded into the ship's computer by Kal-El's command key.

The AI-that-was

-Jor-El used the ship's systems and resources to fabricate the suit while they were walking around talking, at which point he gave it to Kal-El.

The ship was old but functional; Jor-El was not,

neither was the AI based on his mind, and the suit was brand-new.

Question: In the movie  Man of Steel  Superman somehow finds his iconic costume in the 20,000 year old ship, which looks more modern than the dress that Jor-El wore. And it bears the symbol of his House. Can anyone explain what such a modern dress (by Krypton's standards) is doing in a 20,000 year old ship?

What is Superman's costume doing in a 20,000 year old ship?

In the movie, Krypton, the invasion on earth, and the archive history all show a similar design in terms of costume. Many of them have cloaks, as well as symbols and runes prominetly displayed. Also, being a colonial ship, the Kryptonian craft was shown to be highly developed in terms of provisions and functioning.

In the movie, Krypton, the invasion on earth, and the archive history all show a similar design in terms of costume. Many of them have cloaks, as well as symbols and runes prominently displayed. Jor-El's consciousness was the one controlling the ship. It can be fairly assumed that the suit was 'constructed' by the ship as per the ship's programming. This also can provide the simple answer to why the suit perfectly fit Kal-El.


Superman is not a killer, however capable he is of the deed, it's never his intention.

In general Zod's case, he knew no other way to stop him but to kill him once he had him in the position to break his neck.

Superman's evolution on earth had rendered him more powerful than Zod, but not as skilled of a fighter.

After seeing no end to the constant bludgeoning between them, it left him with no other choice...and this is why he cried out after doing so.

Zod does say at one point - "I was born a warrior.

I have had a life of training and adapting" and he proceeds to hover.

But the point is that, he was still learning to function in Earth's environment whereas Kal has 33 years to do the same thing.

I think it is very safe to say Kal was more powerful than Zod.

You may ask, how come the last fight took so long then?

Again, this is the first time Kal is engaging in battle whereas Zod has probably been in numerous battles.

So it was a good match but in the end, adaptability won.

Superman was more powerful than Zod.

In one scene Zor-El says to Zod that his son was twice the man he is.

He also states that due to living on Earth, adapting to Earth's environment, his son has become more powerful.

So Superman had the strength which other Kryptonians didn't have and that is why he could break Zod's neck.

It's just the case of adaptability to earths environment and also evolution.

It made Superman powerful as his skin soaks in the sun's radiation unlike Zod's.

Also, a human can break a fellow human's neck but

not a dinosaur's, similarly a Kryptonian breaks another Kryptonian.

According to the film's official novelisation , Superman was able to break Zod's neck simply because while Kryptonians are far stronger than humans (making it impossible for a human to have snapped Zod's neck), Kryptonians are perfectly capable of inflicting harm on each other .

Note that what look like mere punches and kicks in the earlier fight sequence would have resulted in a human dying instantly .

They fought savagely, hand-to-hand, upon the floor of the station.

Their superhuman blows inflicted damage no human weapon could match.

Indestructible Kryptonian fabric ripped in the struggle.

Vicious kicks and jabs, delivered with Herculean force, left their faces bruised and bloodied.

A fist of steel split Zod’s lip, and he retaliated by driving his knee up into Superman’s chin.

The blow, which would have sent a cast-iron safe into orbit, loosened Superman’s teeth.

He tasted blood.

But Zod’s unreasoning rage made him sloppy.

He charged like an animal, lowering his guard long enough for the Man of Steel to deliver an old-fashioned haymaker that sent him flying backward across the terminal.

Zod hit the floor hard, only to discover that Superman had already shot across at super-speed to be there waiting for him.

And then the coup de grâce, against a severely beaten enemy...

A little girl sobbed as the beam came closer, now only moments away.

Superman cried out in anguish, knowing he had no other choice.

It was Zod’s life—or the lives of innocents.

He marshaled every ounce of strength that remained within him.

And then... He snapped Zod’s neck.

His form went limp, his fiery gaze extinguished instantly.

Superman released the body and let it slump to the floor.

Gazing down at the dead Kryptonian, he was surprised by the peaceful expression on his face.

Superman doesn't kill anyone.

DC Comics and Christopher Nolan were not convinced with what Goyer and Snyder had come up with but later they approved of that move.

Superman is powerful on Earth than Zod but in many ways Zod is stronger than him.

Superman did not want to kill him because he just wanted to stop him from doing what he wanted to and both of them wanted Krypton to be build

but Zod wanted to do it on Earth, killing all humans which Kal-El disapproved of.

Kryptonians on earth are immensely powerful, not invincible, not immortal.

Kal-El was able to snap Zod's neck because he alone had the power to do so.

As to why Zod could not do it-

It requires great skill and power to twist someone's neck.

This cannot be done easily and requires some sort of a lock on the opponent.

Kal-El never had any fight experience, while Zod was a veteran.

Though their powers were on a similar level, Kal-El would always be more powerful due to the long exposure of sun on his body.

Zod was barely granted powers and he could take on Superman.

While Kal-El always refrained from his powers at a mental level.

The scene where Zod tries to kill those people with his eye-lasers, sent Kal-El into a mental desperation to stop him.

Not wanting to be a repeat of the situation where Uncle Kent died, Kal-El used all he had to try and stop Zod.

I think them being indoors could be significant, in direct sunlight they seem evenly matched but out of the sun Superman would retain his powers whereas Zod would diminish slightly and become vulnerable.

This is what I'm hoping, otherwise he should've snapped all their necks before they made a real mess of Earth!

Question: At the end of  Man of Steel , Superman breaks the neck of General Zod. My question is, how could he do that so easily? And why did none of the Kryptonians think about doing that to him? Especially, considering that they are a lot more ruthless and don't pay attention to morality, etc.  To be honest, I was a little confused when Superman broke Zod's neck because I thought it is not possible.

How did the final confrontation in Man of Steel get resolved?

Uper man doesn't really want to kill him, also because they both wanted to build Krypton. But, Zod wanted to build Krypton on earth, killing all humans which Kal-El disapproved of.

Superman doesn't kill anyone. DC Comics and Christopher Nolan were not convinced with what Goyer and Snyder had come up with. Superman is more  powerful on Earth than Zod but in many ways Zod is stronger than him.


Yes they are all connected.

Despite Hank's outward appearance of nonchalance, the incident with Tuco shook him a lot.

It was probably Hank's first really violent fire fight and that left him suffering from a form of post traumatic stress disorder.

He becomes more fearful and more fearful of further violence.

Tuco's grill was a grisly reminder of all the fear he went through, which was something he didn't want to relive anymore.

But fearful for his reputation as a tough cop, he outwardly accepts the souvenir only to dispose of it in secret later on.

Hank's secret reluctance to take up the position in the Mexican border is also another indication of this.

To add, I would also say that Tuco's grill represents the change that Hank refuses to go through.

Hence, why he throws it, and for that matter, El Paso in the river.

Heisenberg calls him and (if I'm not getting into spoiler territory), by extension death calls for him.

So in a small way, I come to see Tuco's grill as both a grizzly reminder not only to the violence inflicted upon Hank, but the violence that he has inflicted on others.

Maybe the grill represents the tainted idea of being rewarded?

I mean, Hank killed Tuco and yet, instead of having cuffs slapped on his wrists, people clap their hands on his back.

Good job, Hank", "Way to get that bastard!"

But at the end of the day, Hank took a life, and I think that haunts him throughout the series.

He constantly fears his own fate, verbally and emotionally (its why he has anxiety/panic attacks?)

because he regrets his own thirst and actions for and towards violence.

I see the grill as a literary device which highlights the basic incompatibility between Hank and his wife.

In a prior episode she steals the silver tiara, with no guilt, and gives it away as a gift.

The tiara is a tiny silver semi circle, similar to Tuco's gold semi circular grill.

In Hanks case however he is the recipient of this gift which eventually elicits a panic attack.

Neither Hank nor his wife keep their precious metal arc - she blithely gives hers away, he casts his off with revulsion.

The prior answers are good, but I wanted to point out a couple of other things.

First, as one of the answers noted, the "grill" was not a trophy sought by Hank, but rather something that was given to him by his colleagues.

Second, it seemed to me that Tuco was actually killed by the gunshot Tuco suffered during the strugggle with Jesse, fired by Jesse from Tuco's own gun before Hank arrived on the scene.

Although Tuco was still alive during the gunfight with Hank, it was not clear that Hank even hit Tuco and Hank likely would have died had Tuco not been shot prior to Hank showing up.

I think Hank felt that the trophy was not deserved.

Anyone who's seen Breaking Bad should know the answer, this is a fact not a guess, the reason why Hank throws the grill into the river was because it was a constant reminder of how close he came to death, and how scared he was in the beginning of this scene.

He approached Tuco as if he was Jesse Pinkman walking all cocky "Mr. Pinkman"

, he says with a smile on his face

but then when he found out it who it was, s

*** got real pretty quick, he turned that frown upside down because he knew how dangerous Tuco was and Tuco didn't even have a gun in his hands and he was already wearing a bullet in his stomach.

Hank, on the other hand, did have a gun on him but he was still shittin'.

Hank's whole career

he has the backup; his partner and his Squad of DEA soldiers that's why he always act so badass and tough because he basically has a military backing him up as he chases down skinny weak little meth heads, because in Albuquerque that's all there is

, it's not hard up there.

That gunfight he went through was a real traumatic day in his life, it was the first time shit ever got real

and he couldn't handle it

that's why when he got promoted to go to El Paso

he knew that's where the real gangsters were, and he started having panic attacks, he couldn't handle it and that's why he got into a fight at the bar.

He was trying to toughen himself up, he was embarrassed and ashamed that he really wasn't the tough guy

he thought he was.

I can't tell you how many hints and clues there are in scenes where they straight out reveal this out

right, when Skyler asks Marie how's Hank doing after the gunfight Marie replies you know

Hank

he's indestructible or something like that, this is a no-brainer I can go hours explaining evidence that supports this fact.

I believe Hank disposes of the grill because it is a constant reminder of his near death experience, as well as rage that Tuco wasn't the man distributing the Blue Meth.

Question: At the end of S2E5 of Breaking Bad ("Breakage"), Hank throws Tuco's 'grill' he claimed as a trophy upon killing him, into a river.   What motivated him to do this?  This episode shows Hank: get a promotion and have some sort of an episode shortly thereafter in an elevator; injure himself while bottling beer; get frightened by loud bangs that turn out to be beer bottles exploding. Is this all interconnected?

Why does Hank throw Tuco's 'grill' into the river?

The reason why Hank throws the grill into the river is because it was a constant reminder of how close he came to death.

Hank throws the grill into the river as a constant reminder of how close he came to death. Anyone who's seen Breaking Bad should know the answer.


It is officially male! After reading through the entirety of the Bulbapedia Article on Ash's Pikachu, specifically the Trivia section , it is confirmed that Ash's Pikachu is in fact male: In

Where No Togepi Has Gone Before!

it was confirmed that Pikachu is male.

His physical appearance could not be used as proof, since gender differences were not implemented until after he had debuted in the anime.

Further to Mary Jo Finch's answer, there is another recent episode ( Beauties Battling for Pride and Prestige! )

where Pikachu disguises himself as a female, seen here:

Pokémon the anime started in 1997.

Gender differences in a pokémon species was added in 1999, in Generation 2 of the games.

The Togepi episode was 2009, the Beauties episode was 2012.

12 years to find out Pikachu is male.

According to Wikipedia , there are male and female Pikachu: Standing 1.04 ft (0.4m)

tall, Pikachu are mouse-like creatures, and were the first "Electric-type" Pokémon created, their design intended to revolve around the concept of electricity.

They appear as mouse-like creatures that have short, yellow fur with brown markings covering their backs and parts of their lightning bolt shaped tails.

They have black-tipped, pointed ears and red circular pouches on their cheeks, which can spark with electricity.

In Pokémon Diamond and Pearl , gender differences were introduced; a female Pikachu now has an indent at the end of its tail, giving it a heart-shaped appearance.

This evidence comes from the game.

I cannot find evidence of a female Pikachu in the television series, but presumably since they are from the same franchise, it would hold that Ash's Pikachu is male.

In Pokemon black and white, episode 1-7 a female snivy uses attract on pikachu and it worked.

Right after a character named iris says "it worked on pikachu

so snivy has to be a girl!"

And then later in the show says "attract only works on Pokemon of the opposite gender".

Ash's Pikachu is female because in one episode of Pokemon Black and White a female Pokemon used attract on Pikachu, but it doesn't work.

In the game, when Pokemon A uses the move Attract on Pokemon B, if Pokemon B is the opposite gender of Pokemon A, Pokemon B gains the status effect Infatuate, which causes their attacks to miss 50% of the time until the status effect is removed (the simplest method being to simply switch Pokemon B with another Pokemon from the trainer's roster).

The only qualifier for Attract to work or fail is the gender of the Pokemon the attack is used on.

Both Pokemon do not need to be the same species.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/9235/A guy that knows Pokémon

Female Pikachus have heart-shaped lightning bolt tails while male Pikachus have lightning bolt tails without the heart-shaped end.

Since Ash's Pikachu has ho heart shape, he's a boy.

pikachu is male because in black and white the anime just like all of the other male pokemon pikachu is attracted to emolga.

Also its tail does not have a heart.

It's a male.

I know because female Pikachus have a heart like tail while male Pikachus don't.

It's very obvious if you have played a Pokémon game.

Besides, everybody who has played Pokémon Alpha Sapphire or Pokémon Omega Ruby knows that Cosplay Pikachu is a female, but can dress up as a boy.

In a quick answer, Ash's Pikachu is a male.

"In 'Where No Togepi Has Gone Before!'

it was confirmed that Pikachu is male.

His physical appearance could not be used as proof, since gender differences were not implemented until after he had debuted in the anime."

Came from the wiki.

May not be the best source

but it's pretty darn accurate in most cases.

He is also referred to as 'he' and not 'she'.

Not only that but one can assume Pikachu is a male because the show is mostly aimed and viewed by males.

There were also some game events where ash's pikachu would be distributed, and he is a male in all distributes of the events.

Question: I was recently having a discussion about Pokémon, and it came up that none of us were sure whether Ash's Pikachu in the series was male or female. Some (myself included) always thought it was male, whereas others could've sworn it was female.  Was there ever any canon evidence to point in one direction or another?

Is Pikachu's gender ever confirmed?

Ash's Pikachu was male seeing as he did not have a heart-shaped lightning bolt tail, which female Pikachus have.

Female Pikachus have heart-shaped lightning bolt tails, while male Pikachu have lightning bolt tail without the heart.


Javert reveals his reasons in the song he sings when he commits suicide.

And must I now begin to doubt, who never doubted all these years/

My heart is stone and still it trembles/

The world I have known is lost in shadows/

Is he from Heaven or from Hell?/ And

does he know, that granting me my life today, this man has killed me even so...

I am reaching

but I fall and the stars are black and

cold/

As I stare it to the void/ to a world that cannot hold

I'll escape now from that world, from the world of Jean Valjean/

There is nowhere

I can turn/

There is no way to go on.

Javert kills himself because the mercy shown to him by Jean Valjean

so disrupts his black and white world view that he cannot bear to live in a world he no longer understands.

One of the key themes in the work is that those who cannot adapt are destroyed (Javert, Fantine, Enjolras), while those who are flexible thrive (Thénardier).

It is really a very cynical work when you get down to it.

Javert was a man of big integrity and he believed fully in the law and the penalty system.

He followed and enforced the law to the letter.

So when he realized that Val Jean was doing more good as a free man that he would have done in jail he find himself with a dilemma.

He can't let him free because he would betray his integrity, but also he can't stop him because he would prevent him from protecting good people.

So he found the only solution to his inner fight.

If he dies Val Jean is free to go and he would not have to betray the law.

From wikipedia : When Valjean saves his life, Javert finds himself unable to reconcile his life's work pursuing criminals with the nobility and justice shown him by the man he thought was a criminal, and takes his own life by jumping off a bridge into the river Seine.

The OP has identified some of the reasons for Javert's suicide.

He does sing "

Damned if I'll live in the debt of a thief!"

but the central reason is the conflict created in his mind by Valjean's actions.

He shows this when he sings "And must I now begin to doubt, who never doubted all these years.

I myself have found this difficult to reconcile from a modern western perspective.

One must realize, though, that Javert has spent his life fighting the internal shame of his low birth ("I was born inside a jail...

I am from the gutter too.") with a strict adherence to the law.

In differentiating himself from the "scum" he grew up seeing he has created an inflexible dichotomy between righteous and evil men and left himself unable to see that a person can cross that divide ("Men like you can never change").

He was unable to see the good and bad in every man and did not believe a person could make such a fundamental change.

And really, men dealing with change is what the entire story is about.

The revolutionary change of 19th century France; Marius' struggle with his changing ideals; Valjean's change from criminal to upright citizen.

Each character was dealing with the internal struggle created by these changes.

Javert could not come to terms with it and the contradictions it presents.

All of this is shown in the lyrics but you have to really pay attention to the details of what Javert is saying.

Some of these details are exposed during the confrontation duet where both characters are singing simultaneously and can be tough to pick out.

I must commend the writers of the musical for managing to bring out so many of Victor Hugo's complex characters.

To take a 1200+ page book and turn it into a 2 1/2 hour play is a real accomplishment.

Victor Hugo's piece is a very interesting piece theologically, especially looking a Javert's death.

Javert represents the Old Testament, the Torah.

He lives the law, and he is the law.

Jean Valjean represents the new law, the New Testament, the law of love and mercy.

Just as in the Bible, both laws cannot coexist; one has to be done away with, one has to die.

As Jesus died on the cross, he took with him the Old Law, giving us the new law of love and mercy.

As Valjean forgives and shows grace and mercy to Javert, he lays the new law of love and mercy, thus the old law (Javert) has to die.

There's a passage in the book.

Javert encounters a dilemma: if Javert were to take Valjean into custody, he would betray the humane law since Valjean saved Javert in the exact same circumstance before; if Javert were to let Valjean go, Javert would shirk his duty as a police inspector that he has always staunchly believed in.

Javert finds an inconsistency in the logic about the rule of law and his role as a police inspector.

Javert lets Valjean go, but he cannot reconcile the inconsistency between what he just did according to the humane law and his role and belief as a police inspector that carries out the social law.

This inconsistency drives him to suicide.

I believe the story takes place during Napoleon III, another rebellion against his reign that fails.

Question: In the film  Les Misérables , Javert kills himself after letting Valjean pass. Why did he commit suicide?   Was it because he felt he had failed?  Was it because he didn't want to be indebted to a criminal?  Was it because he realised he'd been pursuing a good man?   I can see these reasons upsetting him but not enough to take his own life!

What was the reason for Javert's decision?

Javert was a man of great integrity, who obeyed and enforced the law. So, when he realised that  Val Jean was helping people and arresting him would prevent him from doing that he found himself in a dilemma. One that could only be solsved, without breaking the law but also doing the right thing, by killing himself.

Javert was a man of big integrity and he believed fully in the law and the penalty system. When he realized that Val Jean was doing more good as a free man that he would have done in jail he find himself with a dilemma. So he found the only solution to his inner fight. If he dies Val Jean is free to go and he would not have to betray the law. He takes his own life by  jumping off a bridge into the river Seine.


This is all just speculation, but some points to consider: How many bottles of this “petrol” would be required to get to 88 mph?

To what degree is this “petrol” compatible with combustion engines from 1985?

There were no highways back then, where could you find a place to accelerate to the required speed?

(If I remember correctly, flight was not an option.)

They were going to try alternative combustible liquids.

The first they tried was alcohol.

The strongest one the could buy from the local bartender if I remember correctly.

With that the intake manifold to blew out and then it would have taken about a month to repair it according to Doc.

They didn't have the time for that since they were planning to leave before the next Monday to avoid Doc's death.

Probably if they didn't blow the intake manifold they would have tried also Petrol eventually.

Because that wouldn't make a good movie.

In reality they could have burned Kerosene that no doubt has a higher octane rating (150) than petrol of the time.

With a low octane rating, they wouldn't have gotten to 88mph because the knock sensors would have cut timing and put the car in limp mode.

Petrol wasn't invented until 1870 or 1871 and it seems likely it was a small potatoes British business.

While I don't doubt that some of their product made it to the eastern U.S., it seems very unlikely

it was well distributed and probably would not have made it to the Wild West, especially California.

Even if it was sold in San Francisco, what are the chances it would have made it to Hill Valley?

As portrayed, the town had made it to the iron age, but that was about it.

Part of the issue was that they had a time limit.

Doc (and then Marty) was going to be murdered in a week.

They didn't have time to do much more than try what they had available to them locally.

Question: There was a refined petroleum product called "petrol" available as far back as 1870 which was used (among other things) to kill lice nits and as a solvent.  When internal combustion engines were being developed, this product, unchanged, was found to be an ideal fuel.  Why couldn't Doc and Marty have bought some of that to refill the DeLorean?

Why didn't Doc and Marty buy "petrol" in 1885?

Their plan was to leave before the upcoming Monday to avoid Doc's death but they had broken the intake manifold, which would have taken about a month to repair. So, if the intake manifold wasn't broken they most probably would have tried to use Petrol.

They were going to try alternative combustible liquids. The first they tried was alcohol. With that the intake manifold to blew out and then it would have taken about a month to repair it according to Doc.


The existance of www.ericaalbright.com not withstanding, the name of the girl portrayed as "Erica Albright" in the film was certainly not "Erica Albright".

Sorkin basically admits to this in a few interviews, where he claims to have changed three specific names and that Erica's was one of those.

The person who most fits that character's depiction is a girl names Jessica Alona, but literally all anyone knows about her publicly is that Zuckerberg insulted her on LiveJournal in a drunken rant that seems to have been the start of FaceMash.

The actual LiveJournal post is still available, and you can clearly see the original name in the source code for the famous "bitch" post: http://www.slashfilm.com/the-truth-behind-the-social-network/ Note that this directly contradicts the statements made on the Erica Albright web site, which suggests that either 1) that's a fake web page, or 2)

Jessica Alona has decided to go with Sorkin's pseudonym to maintain her own identity.

According to the slashfilm article, as of late 2010, no one named Jessica Alona had come forward to identify herself as the subject of that particular blog post.

Also, nothing in that post necessarily claims that Zuckerberg was dating Mrs. Alona, merely that she had somehow angered him, but that does seem most likely.

Note that he did not begin dating his current wife until after Facebook was already up and running, which would likely have been years after any possible relationship with the girl that inspired Facebook in the first place.

EricaAlbright.com is a hoax web site.

It is just someone trying to get attention on the Internet with a "famous" name.

Erica Albright is a fictitious person created for the sake of drama, because movies need a romantic plot to make them more interesting to some audience.

From http://ericaalbright.com/about/ : ...

By the way, everything on this website is fictional and completely made up.

This website is for entertainment only and has no association with Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, or Mark’s girlfriend depicted on the movie, The Social Network.

You can find your answer on ericaalbright.com : I know that Mark has another girlfriend and the two of them seem very happy together.

I’ve actually met her a few times when Mark and I were dating

and she’s very nice.

But since “The Social Network” came out, people are still asking me if him and I are going to get back together.

So for once and for all, I’m going to set the record straight.

I do not want to get back together with Mark.

Not that there is anything wrong with him

I just don’t have much in common with him.

We do talk every once in a while

but we’re not Facebook friends or anything.

I’m not

friends on FB with him mainly because I don’t want a gazillion friends on FB.

(I’m not Erica Albright on FB)

A lot of you have been writing to me and...

So definitely a real person (unless the website is a hoax). EDIT (because of further reading on the website) ...

So usually I don’t read all the blogs and news sites that talk about ‘The Social Network’, but today, one just caught my attention.

Maybe I’m being overly sensitive today for some reason

but I just need to get a few things out in the open.

The movie ‘The Social Network’ really depicts me as being a b*tch.

Yeah, I know that Mark wrote that in in public HTML code which is now totally public, but I’m not really a b*tch!

Do you want to know the REAL story about me, the EX Girlfriend of Mark Zuckerberg?

Even though it is really cool that someone played ME in a movie, I am completely the opposite of how I am depicted in the movie.

I am smart, funny, sweet (although I do have a naughty side), and I was really in LOVE with...

While not having any background information if she really existed in the way written in the movie/book or how his relationship with Priscilla actually was, I'll attempt an answer based on mere reason.

I'd say his relationship to Priscilla maybe didn't provide the same conflicts as his (maybe fictitious) relationship with Erica .

While it would be wrong to say he's done everything just because of Erica , his break-up with her still serves as a major background influence to his character and the movie's story.

See this related question and this one for some insight on her role in the movie.

Maybe Priscilla just didn't provide those interesting developments for the story.

If Erica was not real, then you have more freedom in fitting her to the story of the movie than if she had been real, like Priscilla .

EDIT:

Seeing Paulster2 's answer, she was indeed real.

But I still stand by my reasoning, that his unsuccessful relationship with Erica was probably prefered by the writers for providing more conflict to the story and the character.

In fact the movie (as well as the book) doesn't seem to be an accurate (or at least not complete) rendition of the real circumstances and characters anyway.

So leaving out a character or emphasizing another one for the sake of story-telling isn't that unreasonable.

Mark did an interview and a question concerning the movie came up.

He denies that the person in the movie exists at all:

Question: In the film The Social Network Mark breaks up with Erica Albright early on, this (through a series of steps) leads to him creating The Facebook.  However in real life Mark is married to Priscilla Chan who he met at Jewish fraternity at Harvard University in 2003 (Facebook was founded in 2004).  Does Erica Albright exist? If not why is she featured in the film and not Priscilla Chan?

Was Erica Albright real?

During an interview Mark denied that Erica Albright Exists.

Mark denied that the person in the movie exists at all

Mark at his interview and a question concerning the movie came up he denied that the person in the movie exists at all


Aside from all the sources that may already corroborate that Prison Break has reached its ending in totality, e.g., IMDB/Wikipedia, it seems exceedingly unlikely that we would see Michael Scofield in action again, as the final episode of Prison break tells us: Michael hears of the bounty and devises plans for Sara's escape.

In the end, knowing that he is dying from a brain tumor, Michael sacrifices himself for his brother, wife and child.

- Wikipedia

We don't see him die, but we do see Sara and his child at his gravestone, assuredly marking his demise.

When we also consider all the other loose ends tied up (other prisoners dying, Lincoln's absolution, deconstruction of 'The Company'), it lends for little further possible plot to continue on.

Update :

Prison break going to be revived

One of these unanswered questions that likely immediately jumps to mind is: [

SPOILER ALERT] how in the world is Michael still alive?

For those that don’t know, “Prison Break” ended with a made for TV movie in which the character sacrifices himself in order to save Lincoln, Sarah (Sara Tancredi) and her unborn child.

According to Deadline, the 10-episode event series revival will mostly ignore the events of this finale, but will provide a “logical explanation” as to why the character is alive.

However, even if they explain how he survived his death, writers also need to explain how he survived his terminal brain tumor.

No.

The the show is over and there are no plans for a season 5.

"Prison Break", a television series on the Fox Network, ended its run in 2009, after 4 seasons.

It concerned the breakout of a group of felons from a prison in Chicago, and the ensuing run to evade capture by the FBI and international agents.

It starred: Wentworth Miller, who has gone on to other roles, though, decidedly few; Dominic Purcell who played his incarcerated brother, who has moved into motion pictures in a number of action thrillers, and guest television spots; Robert Knepper, who had a number of television projects since Prison Break, also a number of films; William Fichtner, who played the FBI agent in pursuit, has a currently-active television series "Crossing Lines", and a number of film roles since.

Long story short, I don't think the show "Prison Break" is on anyone's radar for a comeback.

UPDATE:

Today, 2015/01/18, it was revealed

that : ...

“There is some speculation in the press about Prison Break, which honestly was slightly news to us….

Although we’ve made it clear over the years to the studio that we would bring Prison Break back in a heartbeat...

It’s probably the perfect event series.

If our old partners in that show are interested, that would be great.

But at the moment, we have nothing else to report.”

Purcell and Miller are currently recurring in their roles as villains Heat Wave and Captain Cold on The Flash on The CW.

That series was renewed for a second season earlier this week.

Submitting this as a NEW answer, since it clearly contradicts the first, based on information just received - after an additional 2 years.

According to information released August 6, 2015, Prison Break will be back for a season of 10 further episodes.

From PopSugar :

Cochairman Dana Walden added that the reboot will be "a bit of a sequel" that picks up with the characters several years after the events of the final season of the show.

"It will address some questions that were set up at the end of the series," she said, and though she didn't confirm who besides Purcell and Miller would be back, she teased that "some of the iconic characters from that show will be back."

Though there's no word on when it will come back, we do know the return is slated to be a 10-episode arc.

Season 5 is scheduled to air on Tuesdays, starting April 4 this year.

Source

Question: I am a big fan of "Prison Break" and want Michael Scofield in action again. So please can anybody tell me, will I be able to see  the gang  again in action or not? Are there any plans for Season 5?

Will there be any more seasons of "Prison Break"?

Acoording to information released on August 6th, 2015, Prison Break will be back for another season. Cochairman Dana Walden teased that '' some of the iconic charecters from that show will be back.''.

Prison Break will return for a season of 10 further episodes. Cochairman calls reboot "a bit of a sequel" "Some of the iconic characters from that show will be back. "It will address some questions that were set up at the end of the series"


In one instance, Salas says he can always fight for money, but his mother reprimands him, telling him not to be like his father.

Leon also makes a reference to Salas' father.

Salas looks confused, as he thought his father died in a fight.

(Source: www.themoviespoiler.com )

Both point indicated that Salas father's death is a mystery and only his wife and Leon know about it.

It kept mystery in the film till end.

As per intime.wikia.com Wills parents are both timed out.

I just watched this movie and recall Raymond Leon saying something to the affect that Will's father's crime was giving time away.

At another point in the movie, Will tells Sylvia he believes his father was murdered.

I pulled these quotes from http://www.moviequotesandmore.com/in-time-movie-quotes-1.html [talking on the phone]

Raymond Leon:

Hello, Will.

How much do you want?

Will Salas: A thousand years.

Raymond Leon:

You'll never live to spend it.

Will Salas:

Then distribute it to the Timelines in Dayton.

Do it by sunrise tomorrow and she can go home.

Raymond Leon:

Well, I'm afraid for you, Will.

You keep talking like him, you're gonna die like him.

Will Salas:

Hey, my father died in fight trying to take a man's time.

Raymond Leon:

Oh, no.

His crime wasn't taking time.

He was doing something far more dangerous.

Please don't make your father's mistake.

Sylvia Weis:

Where's your family?

Will Salas:

My mother timed out.

Sylvia Weis:

This is her dress?

Will Salas:

Yeah.

Sylvia Weis:

What about your father?

Will Salas: Died when I was a boy.

He was a fighter, strong arm.

He wasn't the strongest, but he knew how to win.

Sylvia Weis:

How do you win?

Will Salas:

I'll show you.

[he takes her arm]

Will Salas:

What you do is you let them have the upper hand, and then he let his time go all the way down because he knew that when you were down to your last seconds, and they think it's over, they start watching your clock and forget to watch their own.

Sylvia Weis:

He died in a fight?

Will Salas:

I think he was killed for giving away what he won.

He wasn't just giving them time, he was giving them hope.

There is a deleted scene where Leon explicitly states that his crime was giving away time and a flashback shows the timekeepers timing him out to "correct the unbalance" (link may expire)

I believe that Leon is Wills father.

throughout the film will's father is a very mysterious figure and not much about him is known.

The things we do know are that he was once in the ghetto, and that he was known for giving away his own time.

So it can be assumed that Will's father is someone who does what thinks is best for the world in an unselfish manner.

I believe that is also what drove him to become a timekeeper.

This is just a theory

let me know what you guys think!

There is something between Fortis and Raymon Leon.

I think they are brothers or atleast grew up as friends.

I wonder if fortis had somrthing to do with wills dad.

Question: In the movie  In Time , when Timekeeper Raymond Leon meets main character Will Salas for the first time, he teases him by talking about Will's father who was too young to know him when he died. He also implies he knows what really happened to him, but we never learn what. What happened to Will's father?

What happened to Will Salas' father?

This is just my personal theory, but I believe that Leon is Wills father. We don't know much about Will's father but what we do know is that he was once in the ghetto and was kown for giving away his own time. Meaning, he did what was best for the world in an unselfish manner which I believe drove him to become a timekeeper.

Leon is Wills father. Throughout the film will's father is a very mysterious figure. The things we do know are that he was once in the ghetto. So it can be assumed that Will's father is someone who does what thinks is best for the world in an unselfish manner.


Does it really matter?

The police are probably going to find it and confiscate if it's on the meth lab compound.

Anyway, these guys must have sold some meth by then and they have more than the amount they stole from Walt.

But now that nobody from the crew is alive to tell anyone where they hid the money, it doesn't really matter.

It might even be buried somewhere in the desert like in "To'hajiilee," in which case it will slowly fade away inside the container.

Another "it doesn't matter" answer, to accompany the excellent ones already written.

The key thing for me is that this action demonstrates that finally Walt doesn't care about the money.

Its the first time in the entire series that Walt doesn't care about maximizing his return.

Even back in Season 2 when they were selling small quantities via Badger and Skinny Pete, Walt got upset when his cut was $1k light when Skinny Pete was robbed.

There could be several reasons why he doesn't care - he's been injured and knows he is likely to die.

However I think he went into this situation for two main reasons: Revenge.

Jack & Todd stole 80% of his money and killed Hank and Steve.

It was this action that finally destroyed Walt's chance to simply return to his family.

To protect his family from being threatened by Jack & Todd I think he knew it was risky and possibly might result in his death - but he had to do as much damage as possible to Jack and his crew.

He also clearly has paternal feelings towards Jesse, and when he sees what they've done to him this must also make him angry.

When faced with a choice of killing Jack and taking his revenge or possibly retrieving his cash - there is no choice as far as he is concerned.

It doesn't matter.

Walt had the option of finding out where the money was, but he didn't need it.

He ensured that his son would get nearly $10 million in less than a year, which he'd likely use to help out his sister and mother (and probably Marie as well), so Walt didn't need the rest of the money anymore, which is why he shot Jack as Jack started to try and talk his way out of the situation.

It's never explicitly answered, within the series.

My expectation would be that, having found the meth lab, the authorities would then leave no stone unturned in pursuit of their money.

Whether it was earned from Jack & his crew cooking/dealing meth or not, would've made little difference.

Living people can contest the seizure, but dead men don't talk.

Given they were not rocket scientists, the money probably would not have remained hidden for long under such intense searching.

Following that line of reasoning, the government found & confiscated the remainder of the 6 barrels of money.

Answering the question which was asked : Probably buried at another desert location known only to Jack and the neo-Nazis who where then murdered by Walt.

The money will never be found and it may eventually become part of Albuquerque are lore as a "buried treasure.

" The neo-Nazis would have dry foolish to have buried the money at the same site where they were also still cooking meth.

Or it may be forgotten as Walt is also dead

, Jesse and Saul are on the run and Huell and Kuby are probably doing the same.

The main characters of the series are all also deceased or distracted and they will likely have forgotten that the money ever existed.

Question: So,  Breaking Bad  has finished.     In the final episode Walt killed Jack, when he started to talk about money.   But where is Walt's money, which Jack has stolen?

Where is Walt's money?

Walt had the option of finding out where the money was, but he didn't need it. He ensured that his son would get nearly $10 million in less than a year. So he shot Jack as Jack started to try and talk his way out of the situation.


One of the known method for this is Reduced gravity aircraft , unofficial nickname vomit comet .

KC-135A known as NASA 930 was used in the movie Apollo 13 .

Cecil said that in 2001: A Space Odyssey , huge rotating sets are used, while the actor remained more or less stationary.

It's not that realistic in looks but cheaper as compare to vomit comet.

Wire and green screen combination are also used sometimes.

Inception is well known for simulating all of its zero/reduced gravity scenes without CG.

There is a behind the scenes documentary where the effects team detail the various method they use – and crucially how different shots within a sequence use different methods.

This means there's never a single "trick" that the eye can catch to break the immersion.

Christopher Nolan:

We did it through a number of different rigs and in the final edit what you see is shot to shot to shot it tends to be a different orientation and a completely different rig in each shot

and I think that more than anything else really stops the audience of seeing the trick of how this scene is done.

They used different sets for the scene, with different orientations, suspending the actors on wires to let them "fly" through the scene.

The long hotel corridor was built upright, so that the walkway was vertical and the camera is looking upward from the bottom.

Then they hung the actors upside down so they can freely move towards the sides of the corridor.

Paul Franklin:

The vertical corridor is supposed to be the same location as the horizontal corridor, it's an identical set.

The difference is that it has been built vertical standing on its end.

This means we drop actors and stunt performers on wires down into the set and the camera looks up at them.

They can then be raised and lowered and swing around the sides and it looks like they're floating in zero gravity.

The actors also tried to simulate the behaviour of weightless people, based on real examples.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt:

In real zero-G, and I've actually spoken to people that have been in real zero-G, what they told me is they never felt so relaxed in life.

What I did is the exact opposite of that.

In order to make it look like that was the case I actually had to keep every muscle tight because I was supporting myself.

The recent film Gravity used motion control rigs adapted from automotive assembly line robots.

Popular Mechanics did a pretty interesting article about it: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/fact-vs-fiction/free-floating-feel-how-gravity-simulates-zero-g-16016504

More recent films also use digital doubles to animate all but actors' faces.

This was used extensively on Ender's Game, and to some extent on Gravity.

Per

this article : To create a sense of weightlessness, the filmmakers shot actors in harnesses and on wires against a greenscreen set to place them in a virtual world.

Then to achieve the look of zero-G — and obey the laws of physics — visual effects studio Digital Domain ultimately retained only the actor’s faces and relied instead on digital doubles of their bodies for the sequence.

And for much more detail : Nearly all the digital doubles created for Ender’s Game were in the zero-G Battle Room. . . .

Digital Domain’s animation team developed tools that allowed artists to correct for that movement, then re-projected digital doubles (or parts of their bodies) back into the shots.

Because Digital Domain had developed CG versions of the actors’ flash suits and re-created the lighting environment digitally, they were able to keep the actors’ faces from the live action shoot and

replace nearly all of the body motions with digital doubles.

If you are looking for a low-budget option, it is worth doing a YouTube search for Anne Hathaway's zero-gravity move on the Graham Norton Show.

She demonstrates how, when filming Interstellar, actors were required to simulate weightlessness by standing on one leg.

She stands on one leg with a relaxed knee and extends the other leg behind her so that it looks like it is floating on camera.

It is a surprisingly effective technique, with zero-budget.

One answer "Apollo 13

" Space Scenes Weren't Hollywood Magic.

And There's No Such Thing As A Weightless Chamber.

So How Did Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton And Kevin Bacon Float?

They Filmed

Aboard NASA's "vomit Comet."

Director Ron Howard describes other techniques in his commentary for Apollo 13 for simulating weightlessness in scenes shot on the soundstage.

The actors often sat one one end of a see-saw which was weighted on the other end, allowing them to bob up and down smoothly.

Simple camera tricks were used such as having the actors lay down on their sides opposite each other, and turning the camera 90 degrees to making it appear that one actor was completely upside down.

Also, they filmed the scenes in the KC-135 before the soundstage ones so the actors knew what real weightlessness looked and felt like, and they could more easily fake the look on earth.

Question: How can the weightlessness of space be  realistically  simulated on film? Does it require CG or can a convincing simulation be achieved using  wire fu  and editing?  (I'm happy to hear of good examples of weightlessness in movies and how the effects were achieved.)

How can weightlessness be simulated on film?

Director Ron Howard describes other techniques for simulating weightles sness in his commentary for Apollo 13. Actors often sat on one end of a see-saw which was weighted on the other end, Simple camera tricks were used and they also filmed scenes in the KC-135 before the sounstage so the actors knew what real weightlessness looked like.

Director Ron Howard describes other techniques in his commentary for Apollo 13 for simulating weightlessness in scenes shot on the soundstage. The actors often sat one one end of a see-saw which was weighted on the other end, allowing them to bob up and down smoothly. Simple camera tricks were used such as turning the camera 90 degrees to make it appear that one actor was completely upside down. They filmed the scenes in the KC-135 before the soundstage ones so they could more easily fake the look on earth.


In my opinion Walter White is not truly evil.

He just want to earn money for his family.

His aim is not to kill Brock but to use Jesse's emotion towards Brock in his favor.

Ricin is riskier than Lily of the valley.

So he used Lily of the valley and removed the Ricin just to put suspicion on Gus.

Note

- I haven't completed season 5 yet, so don't know if it is addressed later.

When Walter White was contemplating how he was going to topple drugkingpin Gustavo Fring, he noticed the potted lilies in his backyard.("End Times") Brock Cantillo was poisoned by Walt in an unknown way with the Lily ofthe Valley berry.

The doctors initially thought he was poisoned byricin as Jesse Pinkman had suggested but later discovered the truetoxin.

The doctors and Jesse believed that Brock came across theflower growing naturally and ate some poisonous berries.

("Face Off") After returning home from successfully killing Gus and getting Jesseback on his side, Walt disposed of the Lily plant from his backyard.("Live Free or Die")

According to the doctors taking care of Brock, Lily of the Valley is not as poisonous as ricin, and they came to the conclusion that Brock might of thought of them as fruits (as they claimed that it would be easy for kids to mistake the venomous plant as consumable), and slipped one in his mouth, causing him to poison himself.

Now the episode makes you believe that Walter White poisoned him, without actual evidence, because he had the plant in his backyard, and disposed of it after killing Gus.

Source: http://breakingbad.wikia.com/wiki/Lily_of_the_Valley

So

Walter might of wanted to temporarily have Jesse's attention by making him believe Gus poisoned Brock, thus sort of brain-washing Pinkman to get him onboard to kill Gus, without causing real harm to the child.

Ricin was always Walt's go-to poison.

This is becuase

it's not at all common and very hard to detect.

As knowlegable as Gus was, it's very unlikely that he'd know about a poison such as ricin.

Gus is a business man nad owner of a chicken franchise, not an expert in chemistry.

If it was actually found to be ricin in brock's system, Jesse would have immediatley blamed Walt despite it coming from his own pack of cigarettes.

By using Lily of the Valley (stated in the show as a commonly found poison)

it's much easier to believe that Gus could be aware of it.

Walter used Lily of the Valley instead of ricin because it has similar attributes to ricin without actually BEING ricin.

If it was actually ricin in Brock's system chances are Jesse would have been taken by the FBI.

Also Lily of the Valley has less of a chance of killing the kid

so Walt could get Jesse on his side and against Gus without killing the kid (possibly.

There's always a chance it could have killed the kid as well.

I guess Walt took the gamble deciding that Brock's life wasn't as important as his family's)

Ricin would have definitely killed Broch and this was not what Walt wanted.

So he used a milder stuff just to get the kid ill and then plant suspicion in Jessie's mind.

It was not necessary to use Ricin or anything else in particular.

I remember the conversation between Jessie and Walt, where Walt says that "think Jessie !

Who do we know, who is known to use children for his own benefit" Walt's whole purpose was to relate Broch's condition to the killing of Tomas , Andrea's 11 year old brother who was killed by Gus's men.

This was highly effective in making Jessie believe that Gus was involved.

Walter has used Ricin before so if he uses it again then Jesse blames Walt without thinking this far, so he used one he didn't use before and that is commonly available.

It would have been a lot easier to get Brock to ingest the pleasant looking berries as apposed to somehow getting the ricin into his food.

This coupled with the fact that the Ricin would take a little time to kick in and therefore may not have had the desired affects in time to spur Jesse into his reactions means that this was the better option for Walt in this case.

Question: In  Breaking Bad  Walter wanted Jesse to believe that Gus was behind the poisoning of Brock. Then why would he use Lily Of The Valey, at the risk of it being traced back to him? Won't using Ricin ensure that Jesse believes Gus did it?

Why does Walter use Lily Of The Valley instead of ricin?

Ricin would have killed Broch and that's not what Walt wanted. He just wanted to get Broch ill to make Jessie believe that Gus was involved seeing as he was known ''to use children for his own benefit'' as Walt confermed during his conversation with Jessie.

Ricin would have definitely killed Broch and this was not what Walt wanted. Walt's whole purpose was to relate Broch's condition to the killing of Tomas, Andrea's 11-year-old brother who was killed by Gus's men. This was highly effective in making Jessie believe that Gus was involved.


It's not a secret message, just a simple instruction.

You just need to look at the whole interchange : Bond :

Dry Martini.

Bartender : Oui, monsieur.

Bond :

Wait... three measures of Gordon's; one of vodka; half a measure of Kina Lillet.

Shake it over ice, and add a thin slice of lemon peel.

Bartender :

Yes, sir.

Tomelli : You know, I'll have one of those.

Infante :

So will I. Bartender : Certainly.

Felix Leiter:

My friend, bring me one as well, keep the fruit.

Bond has ordered a dry martini, then effectively changed his order to a Vesper .

This grabs the attention of the other men at the table who order it too.

Felix Leiter asks for one, but instructs the bartender to "keep the fruit", i.e. serve me the same drink, but without the lemon peel .

Edit:

For any non-English speakers in particular, the comment below from Brian S should be useful: "Keep the X" is a common phrase in English when ordering food/drink used to mean "don't include X."

I don't think that had any kind of deeper message to it.

Bond was ordering a rather complex drink from the waiter, part of which consisted of some kind of fruit (don't know what exactly, a piece of lemon peel maybe?).

After that everybody else joined him and ordered the same, only that Felix didn't want the "fruit" in it.

I don't really think there was any more to it than that.

I would assume it means no lemon

As other posts mentioned, hold the fruit means without the lemon peel.

Since Bond's drink ends up being poisoned in the next scene, it could be that Felix feared that Bond might be poisoned and wanted to make sure he didn't accidentally drink from the glass intended for Bond (they were sitting right next to each other).

Obviously Felix wasn't involved in the poisoning, but it does show that he's more cautious to those sorts of dangers than Bond is.

Alternatively, it could have just been a point of clarification for the viewer: having Bond have a visibly different drink than the person next to him makes it more obvious that the poison was intended for him when they zoom into the glass as he leaves the table.

It's a phrase similar to, and in this case having the same meaning as, the phrase 'hold the x' which is an American English device for asking for something to be left out, or held back, especially from a food order.

The verbs 'keep' and 'hold' here are synonymous in the sense of 'have or retain possession of' and so can be used interchangeably to mean the same thing, although I'd argue that the phrase 'hold the x' as in 'hold the mayo' is more immediately understood than 'keep the mayo' through it's familiarity and use.

It may be worth adding that in Britain, at least in the north, beyond the reaches of cosmopolitan London, it's considered an affectation or at least irony to order food without one of its listed ingredients this way.

But it probably wasn't.

Last word from 'Airplane': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVdvyWK6NiI

there is a [slightly] deeper meaning, by using the word 'fruit' instead of 'lemon'Felix is conveying that he thinks the lemon is an excessive flamboyant element,and by inference that Bond is also excessive and flamboyant.

Felix on the other hand, is no-nonsense and straight forward, he orders a simple drink, he doesn't even bother choosing one, he's saying to the bartender,

your pouring alcohol, pour me one, in simple phrases:

My friend, bring me one as well, keep the fruit.

However i'm not sure 'keep the x'

is that common as a phrase, at least not that I've heard, except in 'keep the change'

At the request of the OP I'm adding this answer based on what my interpretation of this phrase in the movie meant.

Bare in mind

I do not drink and am quite unfamiliar with alcoholic beverages, but I do have friends who drink and my answer is based mainly on things I've picked up from listening to them

talk about types of drinks they prefer.

One of the key rules to alcohol according to my friends seems to be that if you get fruit in your drink you open yourself up to relentless teasing and hazing for being a girl and/or a sissy.

The only real source I have to back up this cultural view is from the TV show Scrubs where the main character J.D.'s favorite drink is the Appletini .

The joke being that he naively considers this to be a "straight" drink and wonders when gays started drinking them.

Putting those two pieces of information together led me to the the jerk response that "keep the fruit" was him saying to make sure the drink was manly and contained only hard liquor, and no girly fruit.

Question: In  Casino Royale , when everyone orders Bond's martini cocktail, Felix Leiter, the CIA agent, says to the bartender "keep the fruit". What was he trying to say?  What fruit is he referring to? Also was that some kind of secret message between CIA and MI6.

What does the "keep the fruit" term mean in Casino Royale?

I don't think it was a hiden messsage. The drink Bond odered has a piece of fruit in it and Felix simply didn't want ''The fruit''

There is not any kind of deeper message to it. After that everybody else joined him and ordered the same, only that Felix  didn't want the  "fruit" in it.


This interview with the film's director indicates that the soldiers cut up the fish to intimidate the tail-enders before battle was joined: BJH:

These moments are what make filmmaking fun and interesting.

It wasn’t actually in the script, but when I was making the storyboards, I thought of this idea I mentioned before—a primitive aspect, like tribes in Africa, a ritual before battle to intimidate their enemies.

Putting blood on their faces and whatnot.

So I came up with this idea of the fish,

but I also wanted to bring it back somehow, because it was such a cool concept.

We decided to have Chris slip on it.

It’s a bit of a strange moment but very natural for me, and Chris took to it immediately.

He sort of laughed and said: “We’re doing all this cool action—you want me to slip on a fish?

Why not?”

We shot it very quickly. and here

Q. Is there any cultural significance to put the axe blade in the belly of a fish before the massacre? BJH:

So it’s a sci-fi movie but

I thought it would be appropriate to have a primitive type fight, like an ancient tribe ritually putting blood on their face.

It wasn’t in the script, but as I was storyboarding I included it.

But it was actually hard to shoot on set: the fish smelled awful, getting the blood on the axe was hard, and the timing was difficult (it was fake blood in a condom, and it was hard to cut it with the axe).

Note that none of these interviews indicate that the fish was poisoned.

I think fish symbolizes people, particlarly ones in the tail section.

Mason said that they eat sushi twice a year in trying to control the population of the aquarium.

Likewise, the population of the train can be controlled by a massacre.

Found this interesting interpretation of the fish, it attempts to tie the events of the movie to astrological symbols/cycles.

Per fellow user's request, my quick summary of the post linked above: The post explains that the cycle of the train follows the zodiac cycle, Pisces, fish cut, Aquarius, aquarium then Taurus for the steak.

If the front of the train is the top of the cycle

this syncs up quite well

actually, the front being the first symbol, the ram (ramming through the snow).

Then there is mention of a Greek myth involving Eros and Aphrodite turning into fish in order to escape Eros' father, Typhon.

If you believe this tie into astrology it could indicate that cutting the fish is meant to show that there is no escape.

I think there are multiple meanings and people above touched on some of them.

It definitely has a lot to do with the idea of "balance" that Tilda Swinton talks about with the Sushi.

Interesting that the aquarium becomes a symbol of balance after Curtis slipped and lost his balance on the gutted fish.

While I can find no direct quotes from anyone involved with the film to confirm my suspicion, within the movie itself

I took it to be a symbolic gesture of intimidation.

Much like when someone draws their finger across their throat to imply an opponent's death or defeat.

In a grander sense, I think it was a symbolism to mark the end of Christian charity.

As you might or might not know, the fish has been associated with Christian symbolism.

I think that the act of gutting the fish with their ax was symbolic of the renunciation of the Christian idea of brotherly love, which was an omen to show that they were prepared to murder their "brothers."

Joon-ho Bong was the director and if youre familiar with asian film making then you will recognize some cultural references in the screenplay....

the fish (which looks like it might be koi---japanese, chinese, korean symbolism around koi is pretty ancient & all of them look at the koi as a symbol of strength and perseverance) has multiple cultural layers of symbolism so much so that it is a virtual archetype and will have many interpretations from many different cultures...

but given the major influences for the film (asian director and french author) i think the following is likely being referenced: "The fish signifies freedom from all restraint.

As in the water a fish moves easily in any direction, so in the Buddha-state the fully-emancipated knows no restraints or obstruction.

the train is like a fish (in shape and movement through the snow), yet the social environment of the interior of the train is the total opposite of the above analysis....

the people are fish whose natural affinity is freedom and movement.

the perfected state of free will which means neither being an agent of oppression nor submitting to or tolerating oppression.

it seems to be an asian-european fusion & utilizes tropes from these two paradigms.

i think, really, this film is commentary on the rationalization of oppression hierarchies we see at work in the world today

(ie the rhetoric around "sustainable balance", everyone "knowing their place", etc so called "social darwinism" and randian style "objectivism" which states that the "strong" are justified in their exploitation of the "weak").

the juxtaposition of the utter impoverishment that is separated from utter luxury by only a few cars is reflective of the surrealness of the real world (esp in the usa)

where wealthy neighborhoods are separated from deeply impoverished ones by only a few blocks.

these blocks become real symbols of this chasm.....

the main focus is about class struggle.

i wonder if the author is a marxist?

def marxist-like influences.

They slice into the guts to rupture the fish's gallbladder to coat the edges of their axes with it's fluid.

I KNOW this is the most likely answer being that I've fished for 22 years and have been filleting fish just as long.

It's the first rule of cleaning fish is to remove it's innards and

if you so much as poke the gallbladder sack then the fish is ruined.

Question: During  Snowpiercer  all the soldiers were cutting into fish as they prepared for battle.   What was the meaning of this gesture?

What was the meaning of the fish?

Fish symbolize people. Mason said they eat sushi twice a year to try an control the aquarium population. Likewise, the population of the train is controlled by a massacre.

Fish symbolizes people, particlarly ones in the tail section.Mason said that they eat sushi twice a year in trying to control the population of the aquarium. Likewise, the population of the train can be controlled by a massacre.