#easy explanations

Answer 1: I work in film and have a VFX degree and here's how it goes:

About half the money, give or take, is for above the line talent. So you have your actors, directors, producers, ect. They get paid in a percentage or in absurdly high amounts for films. These people are also accommodate on set so production has to rent out luxury campers to house them for weeks or months at a time when on location. Then they need to hire drivers and trucks to move those campers. Top tier stars can make demands on top of that. I saw Jim Carrey's camper once and it had an entire astroturf lawn on top of it, with a picnic table, with a vase with flowers on it. Don't ask me why he wanted it, he just did. Those costs are in addition to percentages given to the talent directly, which can be millions each for an A list celebrity. If this is a movie like Infinity War you have multiple guys like RDJ and Cumberbach and like four guy named Chris who could carry a blockbuster on their own and want to be paid like it.

Actors who aren't the main cast still have to show up and get paid. Every random dude you see in the background is an actor who's in it to get paid. If you see a big crowd shot of like 500 people that means that's 500 people who had to show up, go through makeup and costumes, and be accommodated and then be paid.

What you have left over has to pay for production. At minimum it costs like thirty thousand dollars a day just to hire people to actually operate the cameras and set up lights and they usually work 12 hour days and have unions that demand good rates including overtime. This is a very basic cost for a minimum crew for a single day where you get maybe a few minutes of footage done. If you have those big 500 background days you need people to get people to manage those people. If you have complicated shots you need more people for that.

If you're out on location you need to pay the people who own that property. This can cost millions in and of itself if you need time and they know you have money. You also need to pay an entire team of people to show up and get the location ready, which means emptying out whatever furniture is there and replacing it with your own stuff you have to buy. These people are probably also working heavy overtime and have a union demanding pay accordingly. If you decide that isn't worth it then you need to get a studio and build the entire fake set from scratch, or pay a company to recreate it with CG, which isn't cheap either way.

This doesn't count the cost for pre and post production, which is two thirds of the process. You have writers, editors, storyboarders, previz, color grading, foley, and a dozen other departments that have to do work before or after the actual shoot. CG comes here in various phases and obviously isn't cheap. On a Marvel movie if you sit through all of the credits you'll usually see like 8 other companies contracted out to do this and that and if you actually follow through and look up those companies they have big impressive shot breakdowns of what they did and a crew of a hundred plus people who may or may not also be credited.

If you sit through the whole credits of a Marvel movie you probably have thousands of individual names and there are probably three digits worth of people who didn't even make that list. Those guys don't work for free. This shit ain't student film. (source)

Answer 2: CG is very expensive. CG artists are specialists and in high demand. Making a big budget CG blockbuster like an Avengers film employs hundreds of them for years. The personnel costs alone are crazy.

Answer 1: As a general rule of thumb: animals gradually evolve to larger and larger sizes as the environment permits, until the a change in the environment occurs (drought, food source goes extinct, etc) and then that large animal goes extinct because it has evolved to a size that required all of the existing food and is adapted to a very specific climate and any change in either of those things will lead to extinction.Prehistoric animals had tens of millions of years of gradually reach enormous sizes (the Cretaceous Period lasted about 79 million years) whereas the last ice age ended only about 11,000 years ago. Anytime there is a dramatic environmental change, the massive animals tend to go extinct and the smaller and more environmentally adaptive species tend to survive and be the dominant lifeforms for the next age.When you have a climate that is rich with biomass and it doesn’t change dramatically for tens of millions of years, there is sufficient time and material for massive animals to evolve. (source)

Answer 2:  It was thought to be because of higher oxygen levels and greater land masses. More recently we believe it's because of their physiological features hollow bones supporting more weight and bigger lungs supporting more oxygen growth. These along with the time allowed to evolve are our current theories on why so many prehistoric creatures were large. (source)

Answer 1: Companies like Coke switched from reusable glass to plastic because it was cheaper. When plastic waste became a big problem, they paid a lot of money to run ad campaigns that make it sound like it’s our fault for increasing plastic waste and not their fault for producing it all.

When big companies spend lots of money to push an agenda, it usually works.

Just to clarify: The OP didn’t ask “why is there litter” he/she asked “why is the emphasis just on consumers and not producers”. Plastic waste is a complex subject that isn’t easily ELI5. The OP’s actual question however has a pretty clear answer. (source)

Answer 2:  Telling consumers “Stop buying stuff that is bad” works slightly better than telling companies “Stop making stuff that people pay you money for.”

Answer 3: The simple answer: companies don't care, and you can't expect them to do so. Pollution is what we call an externality, something you do that affects other people without you receiving any impact of it. When externalities happen (good or bad), the market does not work well cause you are not considering what your actions cause on other people.In this case, companies trash the environment and don't account for the fact that it harms other people. To fix this, they need to start accounting for it, by getting punished to do so. You can't expect them to turn down a bigger profit for the environment, corporations are rational, they don't have feelings. What we can expect is that if people are willing to punish them by consuming less of their product, they will start controlling themselves. Demand generates supply.This is not really the final solution, it is more like a hotfix. The only real solution is to have an entity that oversees the efficient use of the environment, that punishes or forbids companies from misusing them. This is the role of the state. It is hard to imagine a final solution without a true democracy. Limitations to democracy like lobbies, lack of transparency and misinformed people are the real threat, not the companies. (source)

Answer 1: Former flight medic here. There is lots of data on the "stressors of flight" (many of these stressors are also present in automobiles). As the vehicle moves, the sway and direction change cause you to have to keep yourself upright. These micro movements cause your muscles to be continuously working (even if you don't realize it). The US Air Force has done studies report consistent exposure to aircraft vibrations can lead to fatigue and increased chance of health problems. (source)

Answer 2: When the vehicle accelerates or decelerates, the body needs to make a lot of small adjustments to maintain posture. You don't notice doing this as it's handled by your brain automatically. When this happens so many times, over a large period, you get tired. This is also why you would feel more tired traveling the same distance in a car, than if you did by train. That would be slowing down and speeding up less often (no traffic etc) so the body doesn't have to work so much to maintain posture.

This is obviously not the one and only factor at play here, but it is a major one. The reason why I selected the example of car vs train is that a lot of other factors remain the same in these two. You can't really compare traveling by plane to traveling by train with just this in mind because now there are a lot of other things at play like cabin pressure, engine noise, altitude, air composition etc. (source)

Answer 1:  Looks like the reaction is not understood, but is probably the activation of the "reflex to stay upright". When your muscles relax when you fall asleep, it may accidentally be interpreted as weightlessness (falling), which may trigger the response. (source)

Answer 2: The different parts of your brains that control what you do talk to each other through waves of electricity when you're awake. When you start to sleep, one big sleep wave goes over your whole brain so the different parts of your brain can't hear each other anymore over this big wave.When you feel like you're falling asleep little by little, almost rhythmically, that is the sleep wave trying over and over again to stop the parts of your brain from talking to each other. When you suddenly wake yourself, that's one or more parts of your brain sending waves out "louder" because they don't know why they can't talk to the other parts anymore. Then the big sleep wave has to try again, and hopefully it will stop all of the different parts of the brain from talking to each other, so there's just one big, rhythmic wave and you can get some sleep! (source)

Answer 1:  Some of the series at the end do a brief section about how they go about capturing the footage that they showed. They make their own custom rigs with various types of cameras to help them get shots. They leave camera 'traps' in places and hope to get lucky with them. They wander around following research or local guides to help increase their chances of being in the right place at the right time. So a lot of it is somewhat down to luck. They will know from research roughly where to go for certain things, but being able to capture specific things is down to luck on whether they get any usable footage in the days they allocated at a site. Depending on what they are looking to film at any given site, the time they allocate will differ. (source)

Answer 2:  The snow leopard scene in Planet Earth was THREE years of trying to film it. After only getting about an hours worth of filming the animal asleep, and just as they decided to give up, they captured the hunt scene that made in the show. (source)

Answer 3: Videos like these they compiled from thousands of hour of footage over a long time. Planet Earth took 5 years to make.A camera person could be set up in a location recording several days worth of footage of nothing but trees before finally getting the 10 second clip of a moose walking by. Then they'll typically follow the animal several days. There’s not much of a difference in skill/dedication between a scout sniper and a wildlife photographer, other than one shoots with a gun the other shoots with a camera. (source)

Answer 1: So when you feel the sun's warmth, you're not feeling heat coming from the sun. You're instead feeling heat created on your skin by the sun's light.Light carries energy. Things with colour, like your skin, absorb light. When they do, the atoms that make them up get 'excited'. Depending on the atom, and what state its in, a few things can happen. If the atom is part of a molecule that energy can go to work breaking it out of the molecule. If the atom or molecule is on the surface of a solid or liquid, the energy can go towards flinging it off, into the air, turning into a gas.If there's not enough energy to do either of those things, then the atom will just release the energy to its surroundings. Most of the time, most of the energy is released as heat. This is what you feel when the sun feels warm. Sometimes the energy can be released as light. This is how glow-in-the-dark things work.A cloud doesn't block all the light from the sun, but it does absorb scatter a lot of it. Think of water droplets in a cloud like a million tiny disco balls. The light that gets through is either too sparce to be noticeable, or high-enough energy that it causes damage instead (ie. UV light). (source)

Answer 2: For all those 93 million miles, the sunlight has had no stuff to interact with. Clouds are very very dense compared to space. A lot of the sunlight interacts with the clouds before it can reach you on the surface, leaving less sunlight to warm you up. (source)

Answer 1: For the purposes of hygienic cleaning (killing germs, removing dead skin, cleaning a wound), temperature doesn't matter and (in some scenarios eg washing off bodily fluids or with certain soaps.) cold water is actually preferable.For the purposes of cosmetic cleaning (washing off stains, cleaning oily fingers, greasy marks), hot water can help soften long chain hydrocarbons like waxes, grease or oils and can help solubilise inks or other chemicals into the soap or water. TL;DR (Better ELI5) is: If you want to kill germs, temperature doesn't matter. If you want to clean dirty hands, warm water can help.In both cases, washing thoroughly (at least 15 seconds) with soap is the most important thing. (source)

Answer 2:  Soap actually works better at body temperature (which is not hot). When water of any temperature is in contact with your body, it tends to cool or heat to (you guessed it) body temperature. The temperature of the water has been scientifically proven to do almost nothing to the effectiveness of washing - in some soaps, warm water actually causes issues. (source)