Question: Right before they do the name-calling they take blood from the kids' fingers. Why do they do this?
raywest
31st Aug 2020
The Hunger Games (2012)
31st Aug 2020
Inside Man (2006)
Question: Why wouldn't the cops compare bank records/accounts against the name of each hostage? This would have narrowed down who didn't work at the bank and/or have a bank account. This information would give the cops suspicion of the hostages that could have been the robbers, since they didn't work at the bank or have an account, there is no reason to be in the bank in the first place.
Answer: This was a well-planned heist down to the last detail, according to Dalton Russell. While some of the robbers may be bank employees or had taken out bank accounts prior to the heist, probably at different times and over a staggered period, others could claim they were only at the bank that day to open an account, procure a loan, or for some other service (i.e. a safety deposit box). Only Dalton would not need an explanation as he never posed as a hostage. He remained hidden until walking out days later.
31st Aug 2020
Jurassic World (2015)
Question: There's a theory that the kid who calls the raptor a "six foot turkey" is Owen. Is there any possibility that Blue (the raptor) is the same raptor that Hammond, Ian, Allan etc witnessed hatching in the Visitor Center? They were all stroking it and such which it seemed to enjoy, so it's had human interaction.
Answer: Blue was a 3 year old Raptor. The events of Jurassic World are meant to take 20+ years after Jurassic Park, so Blue wouldn't have been the one seen hatching.
Answer: No. As Bishop73 has said, Blue is a 3 year old raptor and thus not old enough to have been from the original park. The T-Rex on the other hand, is the same from the original. Note the scars on the side of her neck from the Raptor attack in the main hall at the end of the first film.
Answer: In Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, there is video footage of when Owen was working with his three raptors when they were quite small. He had also mentioned that they had imprinted on him at birth.
20th Aug 2020
Cadillac Records (2008)
20th Aug 2020
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: Why did Ray get Robbie and Rachel into the car before he even knew that Manny had fixed it?
Answer: They were in immediate danger and needed to flee. Ray knew that all the vehicles around him had dead batteries, but Manny and his helper were working on fixing the van - which meant that the van was THE only possibility for a working vehicle. Ray was not necessarily certain that Manny had fixed the van, but knew that Manny agreed with his recommendation to try changing the solenoid. The van was not only a good prospect, it was the ONE immediately available chance at getting to flee in a vehicle. If Ray's assumption that Manny DID fix the van turned out to be wrong (the van did not start), little time had been wasted. Ray and his kids would then be running for their lives ("hoofin' it") like everyone else. In short, Ray put the kids in the van because he presumed Manny changed the solenoid and it was now in running condition; fleeing in a vehicle would be much faster than fleeing on foot.
20th Aug 2020
Joker (2019)
Question: What did Arthur mean when he said "They couldn't carry a tune to save their lives"? What does singing have to do with their deaths?
Answer: The 3 men on the subway started singing 'send in the clowns' moments before they attacked Arthur. He is making a joke about their deaths, by saying their singing was really bad and that's why he killed them.
20th Aug 2020
Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein (1948)
Question: As the monster is breaking free from the crate, Wilbur snaps out of the hypnosis that Dracula placed on him. When Wilbur sees Dracula and the monster ready to leave, he immediately pretends to still be hypnotized and unable to move. Since he only pretended to still be hypnotized so as to not alert Dracula and the monster, as soon as Chick, McDougal and the insurance agent showed up why didn't he immediately run to them screaming for help? Why was he acting like he was still hypnotized?
20th Aug 2020
The Munsters (1964)
Question: Why do they act so oblivious as to why people are scared of them?
Answer: The comedic gimmick of both "The Munsters" and "The Addams Family" television shows in the 1960s was that both families were convinced they were normal and everyone else they encountered was odd. The Addams Family, for example, thought their "normal" visitors were mentally unbalanced because they always fled the Addams' weird home in panic. That was a running gag throughout the entire Addams Family series, so much so that easily half of nearly every episode was devoted to the predictably terrified reactions of their visitors (always accompanied by identical canned laughter). Meanwhile, in the Munsters' universe, the family thought "normal" people were physically deformed and even quite hideous. For example, the Munsters believed that their beautiful niece, Marilyn, was socially handicapped by her ugliness (the exact opposite of the truth); and, in the episode "Just Another Pretty Face" (S2E17), when Herman Munster was temporarily transformed into a "normal" person, his entire family found him utterly repulsive. The family's hidden revulsion to "normal" people was the running gag of The Munsters.
20th Aug 2020
Sweet Home Alabama (2002)
Question: Why is Carmichael on her divorce papers when her name is Smooter or Perry?
Answer: After moving to New York to start her fashion career, Melanie changed her maiden surname from Smooter to Carmichael, and that became her legal name. She initiated divorce proceedings without any intention of resuming her old life, which embarrassed her and she tried to hide. Like many women, she did not use her married name (Perry) after ending her marriage and may never have used it. Also, using "Smooter" on her divorce papers would have exposed her lie.
It did not embarrass her, Melanie never wanted to return to Pigeon Creek if her and Jake were over, she kept hoping they would get back together. That's what annoying, people assumed she was ashamed but as the meaning of the film is 'Home is where the heart is'. That feeling of where she longs to be never left even when she was in New York and obviously that was to be with Jake.
20th Aug 2020
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: Gerard already must have doubts as to Richard's guilt because Richard is investigating the one-armed man. Since there is that doubt, why would Gerard try to shoot Kimball in the chest to kill him?
Answer: Yeah, Gerard's doubts aren't enough to change the course of his expected actions as U.S. marshal when Kimble is a fugitive who was officially found guilty in the murder trial. The only thing which would grant Gerard the ability to get away with not trying to capture Kimble would be if Kimble had a whole new trial and was now found innocent, which obviously didn't happen yet. So until then, Gerard would be shirking his duties if he decided to not capture Kimble just because of doubts and there being no new innocent verdict, and that would even possibly cost him his job.
20th Aug 2020
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: Why did Hermione stop Harry from going after Pettigrew while Lupin was transforming?
Answer: For one thing, they're kids, and Hermione knows Harry is ill-equipped to handle this and he will just run off in a blind rage with no thought about what ti do. Hermione is methodical and always thinks before she acts and follows the rules. She wants Harry, who is impetuous, to do the same, and for them to work together.
20th Aug 2020
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: Why does Hermione look angry when Dumbledore is subtly suggesting they use the time turner?
Answer: She's not angry. She realises how serious the situation is, and is considering the difficult task Dumbledore has suggested he wants her and Harry to do.
Not to mention that what Dumbledore is suggesting is illegal under wizarding law and highly dangerous. She knows what could happen legally and physically if problems arise.
14th Aug 2020
Predator 2 (1990)
Question: What was a Predator doing in L.A.? Why not stick with the jungle?
Answer: There's really no reason for it not to. Predators are hunters that hunt for both sport and for honor. It likely saw hunting humans in an urban setting (especially one as chaotic as LA is portrayed in the film) as a potential greater challenge, and thus a greater reward.
Note: Cities are sometimes compared to jungles. So for the predator there is hardly a difference.
Answer: The Predator kills humans for sport and wants to kill as many as possible (for fun and status). There is "critical mass" in cities (urban areas are heavily/densely populated) but relatively few people live in or are found in jungles. The Predator went where he was most likely to encounter MANY people and thereby maximize his head count. (Why spend all day waiting to see if you can find a human in the jungle when you know there are hundreds of thousands - even millions - of people in major cities/urban areas?).
Answer: I believe the reason was, it was looking for the ultimate challenge. In the first movie, it was the first time they had ever been defeated. They considered humans nothing more than animals to be hunted for sport. Now humans had evolved to the point, where they learn to fight back. So the Predators went to the city looking for someone who was smart, tough and shows no fear. He was studying Danny Glover, following him and taunting him.
14th Aug 2020
Robinson Crusoe On Mars (1964)
Question: Was Robinson Crusoe On Mars scientifically plausible when it was made in 1964? Aged eight, I watched this movie on release. Even then I knew it was a movie, not a scientific documentary. Nevertheless, I understand that it was once seriously believed there were canals on the surface of Mars. (I even had a children's pictorial encyclopaedia which showed Mars criss-crossed by canals.) After crash-landing on Mars astronaut Kit Draper (Paul Mantee) discovers that the Martian canals were made by intelligent, technologically advanced beings millennia ago. Could anybody in the scientific community have believed this in 1964? Kit Draper discovers ways of creating oxygen, so he does not suffocate; he then finds water sources, vegetation he can eat and a coal like rock that burns to make fires. He witnesses extra-terrestrial aliens visiting Mars in space ships. Was this, by any stretch of the imagination, regarded as even remotely credible in 1964? Or was it pure Hollywood hokum?
Answer: This is pure Hollywood fiction, never meant to be science-based fact, and was typical of sci-fi films of that era such as: War of the Worlds, Invaders From Mars, The Martian Chronicles, and others. Many were based on early-to-mid-20th century science-fiction novels when little was scientifically known about any of the planets. Authors imagined what Mars was like purely to entertain readers. After the 1960s, as more was scientifically known about Mars, films became more realistic, although the 2012 Disney film, "John Carter," was a deliberate throwback to that earlier genre. Also, scientists never believed that there were canals on Mars. In the 1870s, Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli was mapping Mars through a telescope. He described the long, trench-like geographical features as "canali," (Italian for channels). American astronomer Percival Lowell misinterpreted this as "canals" and believed they were of intelligent origin, though other scientists debunked that. Sci-fi writers of the time (H.G. Wells, Edgar Rice Boroughs, et al) incorporated Lowell's published theories into their stories.
It should be noted "John Carter" is based on the 1912 novel "A Princess of Mars."
3rd Aug 2007
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: Are Indiana Jones and his father immortal at the end of the movie or does the grail's power become null and void when it crosses the seal? The knight said something like "The grail cannot cross the seal, that is the price of immortality." That makes it sound like they are not immortal at the end but I still want to check.
Chosen answer: They're not, no. An individual doesn't become immortal after one drink - it requires them to drink regularly in order to remain alive. So neither Jones has been rendered immortal, merely healed of any wounds that they might have. But your surmise is basically correct - as the Grail cannot leave the shrine, any individual wishing to use it to prolong their life must stay there if they wish to enjoy its effects.
Also, in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull, Henry Jones, Sr has passed away before the start of the story and therefore was not immortal.
9th Aug 2020
Double Jeopardy (1999)
Question: Why did the ex husband kill his former mistress turned wife?
Answer: Nick used Angie to help fake his death, frame Libby, and collect the insurance money which would have gone to their son, Matty. It's unclear if Nick married Angie, who became Matty's legal guardian, but he needed her to gain access to the money. He certainly didn't love her, and once he fully controlled the money, he eliminated her, as she was a liability who could have exposed him. I agree with the other answer that it also simplifies the plot by killing off a secondary character. It also shows how devious, ruthless, and sociopathic Nick is.
Answer: I don't think they explained it, but most likely for her insurance money which is the same reason Nick faked his death in the first place. But it's also possible her death was faked as well. Looking at it from the prospective of the writer, it seemed it was easier to kill her off or get rid of her somehow instead of her showing up at the end with Nick and there wouldn't be a way for Libby to kill her without facing jail time for it and it wouldn't make sense for Libby to just forgive her and let her go.
Angie's death wasn't faked. It was established and verified by the next-door-neighbor lady that she was killed in the house explosion while Nick and Maddy were conveniently away. Libby also researched old newspaper articles about the accident and the ensuing investigation. The articles also showed photos of the now-dead Angie.
9th Aug 2020
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: In the last shot of the knight waving goodbye to the Joneses, is it just me or has the actor been swapped out with a dummy?
Answer: It is the real actor and not a robotic dummy. He moves a bit slowly and deliberately, apparently for effect, but it's a real person.
Just to be clear, I'm not referring to when we see the knight raise his hand to wave goodbye to them, but rather right after Indy says "Please Dad," and he and Henry begin to flee the collapsing temple, you can see the knight in the background with his arm raised and he looks rather stiff. You can see it at around 2:22 of this clip: https://youtu.be/PAfZ7V2VyD8.
I took a closer look. There is the shot where the knight raises his hand and you can see him moving. It then cuts to Indy and Henry, then a cut back to the knight where it briefly looks like it could be a mannequin, then there is another cut and back to the knight again and this time it's definitely the live actor. So yes, for that brief long shot, I think it could be a dummy. This may have been for the purpose of efficiency in the filming, it being easier to use a stationary prop for doing multiple takes, rather than the live actor just standing there. Sometimes they do what is called "pick up" shots, where, post-production, a part of a scene or close-ups are re-shot or added weeks or months later, and it would just be easier to use mannequin rather than recall the actor.
But he does move, so most likely a real person.
9th Aug 2020
Double Jeopardy (1999)
Question: Given she leaves the state while on parole, possessing a firearm, holding her ex at gunpoint, how does Libby avoid prosecution for these offenses?
Answer: Because there were exceptional and extenuating circumstances and, technically, Libby was never guilty of the crime she was convicted of and had to resort to extreme measures to prove her innocence. She may have had a gun, but it could never be proved that she held Nick at gunpoint, only that she shot him in self defense. Also, it's a movie, which often are unrealistic regarding details like that.
7th Aug 2020
12 Years a Slave (2013)
4th Aug 2020
Downton Abbey (2010)
Episode #2.7 - S2-E7
Question: Mary states that Sybil is 21 in 1919, but says he's born in 1895. Also she dies in 1920, so that makes her 24-25, was that an age mistake?
Answer: According to various Downton Abbey online sources, Sybil Crawley was born between May - June 1895 and died between April - August 1920, (exact months were not listed). She would have been 24 years old when she died. Mary's comment can be attributed as a character mistake or, more likely, the screenwriters were careless.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: They use the blood as an additional means to verify a person's identity, matching their blood type to what's on record.
raywest ★