Question: How does Rey get Luke's original (Anakin's) lightsaber? Twice, no less. The first time when Maz Kanada says "a story for another time", a time which never came, apparently. Then it's destroyed in TLJ in the fight with Kylo Ren, then she gets it back again...somehow, in this movie.
raywest
30th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Chosen answer: According to StarWars.com: Rey took the broken pieces with her to Crait. The lightsaber's shattered pieces reunited themselves as she continued down the Jedi path.
If you look closely, the lightsaber has been repaired after being broken in Last Jedi. There is a new middle piece joining the two broken pieces together.
At the end of "The Last Jedi", when the remaining Resistance fighters leave Crait, there is a close-up of Rey's hands holding the broken pieces of the saber, meaning that she took them with her.
30th Dec 2019
The Village (2004)
Question: Why do the elders of the village want the villagers to stay in the village and not leave? If the monsters are fake, then why do the elders not want anyone to leave their village?
Answer: The elders made a pact to leave the modern world and never to return to it. They adopted a 19th century way of life, rejecting all modernity. If the younger members started leaving, they would be faced with a modern, technical world they had no idea existed or know how to function in. The elders also did not want any of their descendants to be subjected to the violent society they had escaped. The elders created the fake monsters to frighten the younger members from ever wanting to leave the safety of the village.
30th Dec 2019
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: When Pettigrew begs Ron to save him outside the Whomping Willow, Ron looks freaked out. Why didn't Hermione, though?
Answer: If you mean why didn't Hermione freak out its been proven time and time again that Hermione is a lot more calm and in control of herself than Ron is. She was able to keep cool around him. Plus Ron was pretty hurt and probably in shock. If you mean why she didn't save Pettigrew its because she knows who he is and what he did, she finds him quite repulsive.
What I meant was she didn't seem weirded out when Pettigrew was all "sweet girl, clever girl" and I wondered why.
Answer: Ron's still in a bit of physical and emotional shock. He was dragged into the Shrieking Shack by what he thought was a vicious animal (Sirius Black) that was going to kill him. His leg was injured when he was being pulled through the tunnel and he's in pain. The biggest issue is his learning that his "beloved" pet rat, Scabbers, was actually Pettigrew, who, for the past few years, was constantly with Ron, being held by him, sleeping in his bed... Ron was totally disgusted by finding out of the truth. That's why Hermione's reaction is different.
29th Dec 2019
Carrie (2013)
Question: Why did her mother spare Carrie after giving birth? When they made eye contact was she suddenly sane and filled with love for her new daughter?
Answer: It's doubtful she became momentarily "sane" but the mother/child bond is incredibly strong, and apparently was stronger than Margaret's initial desire to kill her infant.
Thank you, happy new year. I found this to be a touching scene, they just love having Julianne Moore hold babies as she's done this in four or five movies now, latest being Still Alice, took them forever to give her an Academy Award, should've won at least for The Hours prior to this win.
Answer: At the end of the movie, Margaret tells Carrie that she wanted to keep her, and asked God to let her. There's also a small implication that Carrie's powers may have stopped the scissors blades right as they were about to stab her (remember that Carrie doesn't always have control of her powers, and the deleted scenes reveal that she's had the powers since she was very little. They aren't new). This may have led her mother to believe that God himself was stopping the scissors and allowing her to keep the child.
29th Dec 2019
Logan (2017)
Question: When Laura's foot claws come out why aren't there any holes in her shoes? Only the skin can heal from wounds, not objects.
Answer: It's just a continuity mistake. The blade rips a hole in the shoe, but the hole disappears later on... that's a continuity mistake. It's definitely not a plot hole. A plot hole is more a gap or contradiction in a film's internal logic, or when a film leaves out vital information. (Ex. If a character is established as having a deadly nut allergy, but is eating nuts later on with no ill effect... that would be a plot-hole).
It would only be a plot hole if somehow the lack of holes in the shoes was written into the plot that some effect on the plot. Of course, someone would probably correct the entry by saying she could have had a 2nd pair or they bought a new pair if it was integral to the plot.
29th Dec 2019
The Last of the Mohicans (1992)
Question: Under the waterfall men say their gunpowder is wet. Do they still have dry powder in their horns? Later they have dry powder to shoot their guns.
Answer: If the powder horns were tightly capped, then the powder could remain dry. Also, from what I've read, traditional black powder (gun powder) made from natural ingredients of charcoal, potassium nitrate, and sulfur, is actually made wet, then was formed into cakes and dried. If it got wet again, it could be dried out and be usable.
29th Dec 2019
I Love Lucy (1951)
Question: Why would Ethel think Fred's enlisted? He wouldn't be allowed in due to his age right? I know the plot yet this thinking makes no sense.
29th Dec 2019
Lost in Space (2018)
Question: The eels eat the fuel in all the Jupiters, other than the one in the desert. Somehow, the eels get in all the fuel tanks. We know that the Robinson's ship got them when their ship sank and flooded, so how did they get into all the other ships' tanks, and why wouldn't more eels suck down the fuel later added from the desert ship?
28th Dec 2019
Three Musketeers (1993)
Question: If Countess de Winter's fleur-de-lis brand is on her left shoulder, how did she manage to keep it hidden from Athos during their entire marriage? Were they never intimate?
Chosen answer: They were most likely intimate, but until modern times, it was typical for men and woman to always maintain their modesty by never being completely nude in front of someone, even their spouse. The Countess was probably always partially clothed whenever they were intimate. Marital relations were usually confined to the bedroom, in the dark, and after retiring for the night. Aristocratic women also dressed privately, assisted by a lady's maid. At one time, people even bathed while partially clothed. The Countess may also have used some cosmetic treatment to help cover the brand.
14th Sep 2017
Home Alone (1990)
Question: Why was Kevin's family so mean to him?
Answer: I think it was a way to make leaving him "home alone" more realistic and understandable as opposed to absurd. Being perceived as a brat/pest and annoying to be around, it is (somewhat) conceivable that none of the family members would be eager to have Kevin by their side. This "frees" all of them from noticing that Kevin isn't with them. Everyone would just assume that Kevin is somewhere among them and each be glad they didn't have to sit next to him on the way to the airport or during the long flight.
In addition to this, the movie is partially about Kevin learning to have more respect for others. He appreciates his family more as he spends more time without them.
Answer: The ones who were mean just saw Kevin as a brat. However, it's not uncommon in situations of being in an overcrowded house to easily lose one's patience and temper and become frustrated with small, but irritating things; which seems to happen to his mother. Buzz just has that general big brother contempt for his kid brother, but obviously still loves him, along with everyone else in the family, at the end when he finds out Kevin is safe.
Nuts to that. They all could've tried a little harder, that's one lame excuse for treating someone like garbage and I come from a good sized bunch who've done the same to me. You also forget his uncle didn't care about him regardless of the situation.
Like it or not the answer is perfectly valid. Families have different dynamics. Kevin is something of a brat (he calls his mother "dummy" and openly wishes he didn't have a family), as are his brothers and sisters, especially Buzz. I for one have TWO uncles in my family who behave just like the uncle in the movie. We don't invite them over, but we've had similar situations to what's depicted in the film.
Hey I've had three uncles, father's older brothers, he hated all three of them, cared only when they started dying. Yeah the dynamics and all, my mother has stated "You ruined this family" though this bunch didn't need my help in being messed up. My sympathies to you Mr Hoffman, your uncles Dustin and Philip Seymour must be/been terrible, just kidding only on the famous names there, no offense meant.
It's just a movie! The characters are fictional and were given contrived, exaggerated, over-the-top personalities to fit the comedic plot. It's pointless to compare them to real-life family dynamics.
Also, it's a movie from a child's point of view. Kevin is supposed to be the "victim." As a 35-year-old, I have more sympathy for the adults and older kids. The movie is about Kevin learning to miss his family and be more considerate of others.
27th Dec 2019
Eight Below (2006)
27th Dec 2019
Roseanne (1988)
Question: What season and episode does Roseanne have a pain pill problem?
Answer: It was in Season 10, when the show was rebooted. Roseanne's pain pill abuse is first brought up in Episode 8, "Netflix and Pill." In the spin-off series, "The Conners", Roseanne's death was attributed to an opiate overdose.
30th May 2017
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)
Question: In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, when the Room of Requirement is found, it is a practically small empty room so that the students have enough room to practice their magic. But why in this movie, when looking for Ravenclaw's diadem, is it suddenly an enormous room filled with what seems like centuries of stuff? Since the room changes to fit the person's needs and Harry, Hermione and Ron were so desperate to find it, wouldn't it be easier for the room to simply be empty and small so they can find it more quickly?
Answer: They wanted to find the room that held the diadem. The room simply provided it for them. The original room that held the diadem was big and full of stuff because it needed to be hidden inside it. The room of requirement can't change the location of items within it.
Answer: The room does change size, shape, and function according to a person's specific needs. However, when Harry was searching for the diadem, it appears the room simply reverted to the same configuration it was when the diadem was hidden there. The room may simply be incapable of finding a particular object.
20th Nov 2019
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Question: Why does Captain Sao Feng keep smelling his cloth at the beginning of At Worlds End? Is it to endure the smell of all those big dirty pirates convened in one spot, or is it drugs to get high, or is it a medical thing, or just a runny nose?
19th Dec 2019
Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)
Question: Why do Harry and Marv: 1. Go after Kevin when they should remember the misery he caused them before and 2. Be stupid enough to tell him what their plans are?
Answer: Harry and Marv go after Kevin probably to even the score for a kid having outsmarted them once before. They tell him what their plans are because they're not particularly bright, believe it doesn't matter, and simply because it serves as a plot device. Kevin has to somehow learn their plan, otherwise he could not thwart them.
Answer: Marv and Harry say in one of the scenes that Kevin is not at his own home meaning "he doesn't have a house full of goodies" to hurt them with (quoted from the scene). So they felt like they were safe from any havoc because he didn't know where he was, of course they underestimated him.
18th Dec 2019
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: When Kimble is in the hospital with the boy he changes the diagnosis to what? I have tried to look but it cuts away as he's writing it down on the boy's file.
Answer: When Richard changes the diagnosis, the first thing he writes down is "AO" which is medical shorthand for aorta. Many people who have medical degrees and saw the movie speculate that Joel had an aortic tear. This would cause blood to flow into the chest cavity making it difficult to breathe and with the impact from the crash it could have caused the fatal injury. An aortic tear requires immediate surgery and by changing Joel's diagnosis, Kimble was able to save his life.
Answer: Kimble is watching as the doctor, Al, looks at the chest film and states "possible fractured sternum, he's stable," and we can see Kimble's bothered by that. Then Kimble is told to take the boy to observation room 2. When Kimble questions the boy and looks at the chest film, Kimble ignores what he was told, and instead heads directly for the surgical OR. In the elevator he draws a line over the incorrect essential diagnosis: "depress chest w/ poss fr" (possible fracture), and begins to write "Ao," then he scribbles a signature on the Patient of Dr line. The essential diagnosis Kimble writes is presumably an Aortic trauma, which is a life-threatening critical injury and requires immediate attention. So when Kimble brings the boy to the OR (instead of observation room 2) for the emergency medical procedure, he tells the doctor the boy was sent up from downstairs. The child is then taken to operating room 4, STAT, saving the child's life.
Its a pneumothorax, is air trapped between the lung and the ribcage and it's very common.
Answer: The presumption is the boy was misdiagnosed and he changed the chart to the correct diagnosis. The doctor says later that he saved the boy's life. Most likely he changed the charge to order specific tests.
Answer: It's never specified what he changed the orders to, nor is it important to know. This was done only add to the plot where the other doctor noticed him looking at the X-ray, arousing her suspicion, then creating suspense as Kimble barely escapes from the hospital.
We know it isn't important know, it's just a point of curiosity.
True and if you notice that's the always reliable Julianne Moore as the other doctor. This was the first movie that she did that was lampooned in Mad magazine, the next would be Mocking Jay Part 1.
"The Lost World: Jurassic Park" and "Hannibal" were both lampooned by Mad before "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1."
I totally get that you're curious about it. Just saying that filmmakers usually aren't concerned with showing small details like that. They use broader strokes to tell the story.
A lot of film makers do put in small details into their work. Yes, some are lazy, for example, repeating 1 or 2 paragraphs in a news article too look like they whole page is filled. Others take time to have the whole thing filled out, even adding funny things for the viewer who paused the video to read. This is why there's a lot of trivia entries and questions about what something small was or meant. A casual viewer wouldn't know if what they saw meant something or was the film makers being lazy.
17th Dec 2019
Outbreak (1995)
Question: Why did General Donald McClintock want to keep the virus a secret and not let anyone know of its existence?
Question: Why did Elizabeth lie to the pirates about her last name?
Answer: Elizabeth lied because she knows that being the governor's daughter makes her a valuable hostage who would either be ransomed or used for leverage. A commoner girl is far less useful.
What would the pirates ransom Elizabeth for? Gold silver and jewels?
Possibly for gold but she was more valuable for obtaining her father's cooperation to give them whatever they wanted (i.e. a safe escape, finding the coin, etc.) in exchange for not harming her.
"Safe escape" they can't die. "Finding the coin" the coin was already on board their ship.
She doesn't know that.
13th Dec 2019
Die Hard (1988)
Question: The armoured vehicle that gets sent in when the SWAT team are struggling to get in, before they're even attacked...what's that meant to actually achieve? If it's just meant to smash the doors, the men with guns could do that. And if not...will it just sit there?
Answer: I believe it is supposed to be that it was a precautionary measure and probably standard operating procedure to have it on site when dealing with a terrorist situation. To have it at the ready for if they needed it. Not only this, but a large armored vehicle like that could serve as physiological warfare to make the terrorist more fearful merely by it just being there. A show of strength. As for using it on the door, yes, guys with guns can smash those doors. But guys with guns are still targets to be shot at especially though glass doors. The armored vehicle can smash through it and get the men inside without exposing them to small arms fire.
But why send the armoured car into the lobby before being attacked? And why send it in in the first place? Once it's in the lobby it becomes a sitting duck. Easy pickings for when the occupants decide to disembark.
In some cases, maybe. But the vehicle itself still provides cover for the men in it. They usually would exit from the back or the top, and have that as something to hide against or shoot from. Also, most armored SWAT vehicles like that usually have a very high powered water cannon on the top that has the pressure of a fire truck. This can quickly subdue any hostile forces and knock their defenses down, giving the SWAT ample time to make their move while the enemy is still recovering. Not only this, but the vehicle can have inside more equipment the SWAT members can use, like throwing out smoke and flash bang grenades, or have riot shields as the exit. But this at least gets them inside and up where they can do good. If they tried to walk up to the door without cover, they would be easy pickings from small arms fire and snipers.
Good answer. I would add that presumably, the SWAT vehicle could be put in reverse, and once the front entrance was breached, it would back up. Also, this being a movie, it's shown that the overall police and F.B.I. response is supposed to be somewhat bungled, with different egotistical characters vying for control. Plot wise, it shows how well armed the "terrorists" are supposed to be by blowing up the SWAT vehicle with a missile, and how they anticipate and outsmart the police's every move. This is not reality.
11th Dec 2019
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
Question: Why doesn't Amy even once wear pants?
Answer: Amy does not wear pants because Mayim Bialik does not wear them in her personal life. She is Jewish and observes the Judaic custom of modesty and only wears skirts. The Big Bang producers allowed her to incorporate this practice into her Amy character.
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: In TLJ you see her pick up both halves. It was then repaired between movies, with the prop showing modifications where it was fixed.