Question: In a vast majority of the episodes, whenever Mulder and Scully investigate some mysterious or paranormal phenomenon, Mulder believes that some unknown force is responsible but Scully always has a rational explanation for what is happening. In other episodes, when Scully herself is caught up in something mysterious, she is the believer but Mulder is the skeptic. In those episodes, why would Mulder be skeptical about an unexplained phenomenon considering that he a was witness to his own sisters abduction and he saw many strange things that defied explanation while working for the F.B.I.?
Charles Austin Miller
27th Mar 2018
The X-Files (1993)
Answer: A variety of reasons. Just because Scully saw something unusual does not mean that it was. Mulder always needs concrete proof before he'll believe there's some otherworldly explanation for unexplained phenomena. He's too experienced to take a novice's explanation as fact. It is also a plot by device by the writers to switch the tables on the characters to make it more interesting and to let viewers see another side of their relationship.
26th Mar 2018
Addams Family Values (1993)
Question: In the very last scene of the movie, we see Christina Ricci and David Krumholtz sitting in the Addams Family graveyard, and Krumholtz is placing flowers at Debbie Jellinski's tombstone, when a full human arm (presumably the late Debbie's) shoots out of the grave and grabs his wrist, sending him into screaming fits. However, Debbie was completely cremated to ash by electricity a few minutes earlier in the film. Nothing left of her but ash, shoes and credit cards. So, whose arm reached out from Debbie's grave?
Answer: We are never told whose arm it was that came out of the grave.
Answer: It was a prank Wednesday was pulling on Joel. She mentions she would scare her husband to death and then smiles when Joel starts screaming.
Yes, she said she'd scare her husband to death. But it is a very animated human arm that reaches out of the grave, causing me to wonder WHO was in the grave to pull off the prank?
I mean, if it was just a hand coming out of the grave, I would be satisfied that it was "Thing" taking part in the prank. But it was a whole human forearm (which Thing does not have).
There's no evidence in the film to answer the question. They never show you who the arm belongs to, and with good reason. It would ruin the joke. This is just one of those questions that can't be definitively answered.
This is also a reference to the end scene of Carrie.
1st Mar 2018
Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
Question: At the very end of the film, Tony Stark informs Peter Parker that he is a now a member of the Avengers and reveals his new Spidey suit. Peter moves toward the camera, with Tony Stark plainly visible on the right side of the screen and Happy Hogan far in the background (all three are in this shot), as we hear a male voice in the foreground enthusiastically say, "Yeah! Give that a look!" Except that Tony Stark didn't say it, Peter Parker didn't say it, and Happy Hogan was much too far away to have said it. The dubbed voice obviously does not belong to Tom Holland, Robert Downey Jr or Jon Favreau at all. So who said it?
Answer: Go back and watch the scene again. It looks like you just might be remembering it wrong. It's Tony during the tracking shot. He says "Yeah, give that a look!" in reference to the suit. He's actually not quite on camera when he says the line, hence you don't see him say it. But it's definitely Tony.
I re-watched the shot several times, Tony Stark does not visibly say anything, and the dubbed voice is not that of Robert Downey Jr.
I understand what you are saying. Tony isn't on screen during the line and the voice does sound different. The implication is that Tony is saying the line, without the line Tony is just standing there waiting for Peter to respond for a long time and it would be out of character for him to do so (he's an extremely talkative person). There isn't enough information available to determine whether or not Downey is actually the one who recorded the line, it could be him just recorded in post. But you are definitely correct, I listened to the scene with headphones on and there is a noticeable difference in the tone of voice for this one line and no others.
22nd Feb 2018
Phenomenon (1996)
Question: Why didn't he use his crazy super intelligence, or his telekinesis, to either find a cure for his tumor or at the very least slide the tumor out of his own brain?
Answer: 1. After losing consciousness a second time, George wakes up in the hospital and is told by Dr. Brunder that instead of the tumor destroying brain function, it has been stimulating it not only making George hallucinate seeing a bright light, but, was also responsible for giving him his abilities. Unfortunately, by the time the tumor was detected, it had grown out of control meaning that George had only a short time to live making a search for a cure impossible, especially since he was told there was a very slim chance of survival if he had it removed. 2. If George had tried to use telekinesis to remove the tumor, he would probably have ended up killing himself in the process.
Answer: George saw the alien light flash twice. The implication was that the first alien light flash actually created the "tumor" in George's brain, and it was the tumor that gave him his superhuman abilities. There's no way George could telekinetically remove the tumor or send it into remission because it was the source of his powers. If he started tampering with it, he would instantly lose his powers.
Ah yes.
19th Feb 2018
Ghost (1990)
Question: How did the hospital ghost, cemetery ghost and Subway ghost know that Sam was a ghost too?
Answer: New ghosts (such as Sam) apparently go through a learning process, exploring their abilities. Sam had to learn how to pass through solid objects, move solid objects, enter another human's body, etc. Obviously, the older ghosts had additionally learned to distinguish between the living and the dead.
28th May 2017
Duel (1971)
Question: I know it's never answered in the film but is it explained in the book just why the truck driver takes such a dislike to David Mann - he behaves this way after just a couple of overtakes?
Chosen answer: That is never answered for the film, and not knowing adds to the mystery and intrigue. No mentally stable person would target someone just because they overtook their vehicle on the road. It appears that Mann happened to cross paths with a psychopath. Steven Spielberg has commented that the multiple out-of-state license plates attached to the truck's front bumper may be "trophies" that indicate that the trucker is a serial killer who has run down other drivers. This could be a deadly game to the truck driver.
I just wonder why the driver's door on the big rig was open while it took a dive over the mountain.
Perhaps a hint that the truck driver escaped. You notice that the truck doesn't explode on impact, although the studio insisted it must; Spielberg fought the studio over the inclusion of a cliched fiery finale, as he wanted the crash to convey an ambiguous ending, suggesting that the driver might not have died. Spielberg even explained that the red liquid seen in the truck cab was not blood, but was some sort of automotive fluid. This all lent to the mystery of what actually happened to the driver, whose body we never see.
The stuntman driving the truck had to jump out of the truck right before it went over the edge, and due to equipment issues barely made it out, without having time to shut the door.
24th Jan 2018
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Question: After the Reliant ambushes the Enterprise, Kirk tricks Khan and hammers the Reliant into retreat. As Kirk turns to assess damage to the Enterprise, Scotty inexplicably appears on the bridge, carrying the charred body of Midshipman Peter Preston. Why on earth would Scotty bring the dying Preston to the bridge, rather than to SickBay with all the other injured? He had to deliberately bypass SickBay just to make an unnecessary appearance on the bridge.
Answer: At the time of the attack, most of Scotty's crew were attempting to flee a coolant leak caused by the damage. Cadet Preston (Scotty's nephew) remained at his post in the confusion, and was the reason the Enterprise was able to maintain minimal power with the energizers knocked out. Although he was wounded from the assault while rescuing another crew member, the coolant leak is what led to his ultimate demise, as the coolant was highly toxic. When Scotty brought him to the Bridge, he was himself quite disorientated from the events and was also devastated by his nephew's condition. Agreed it makes little to no sense, but Scotty didn't know what he was doing. His nephew was going to die, regardless of where he took him to. Going to sickbay would not have prevented it at this point. It seems like it was used as a mood breaker for the scene, crews celebrating their escape from death only to be confronted by it again in another form.
Answer: I believe Preston was already dead at that point. An earlier scene was edited out of the film that explained Preston was Scotty's nephew (his sister's son), and which may account for Scotty's rather odd reaction of first bringing him to the bridge.
Yet Preston is shown alive (still dying) in the SickBay moments later. Preston shares last words with Captain Kirk before he actually dies. So, this is a case of bad editing?
What was edited out of the film was an earlier explanation that Preston was Scotty's nephew-this was way before the Enterprise was attacked.
These scenes, which include several of Preston's lines which were cut, were restored in the 2002 Director's Edition. Curiously, when the film is aired on TV they still run the original video cut which has the scenes removed. The editing is really sloppy with the scenes cut out and the scenes establishing that Preston is Scotty's nephew add another emotional layer to the film. It makes Scotty's actions make so much more sense, he's overcome with grief over his nephew and anger at Khan. With the scenes cut what Scotty does makes very little sense.
In the novelization, I believe it is explained that the ship is badly damaged enough that Scotty reached the bridge while attempting to get to sickbay because the computer glitched.
24th Aug 2012
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Question: Even though it's meant as a comedic moment, I've never really understood why Kirk would be so nervous about Saavik piloting the ship out of space dock. She's not actually flying the ship, so it's not like she's going to crash it into the wall or something. Plus, Sulu is an experienced pilot, so even if she said something stupid like "Warp speed!", he's unlikely to follow the order. Just something odd that I have always wondered about.
Chosen answer: He's nervous because she's a trainee and had never done this maneuver before. Even if Sulu is there, she could still possibly make one small error that he would be unable to react to in time. As you point out, the scene is meant to be comedic, and it's being a little over-played strictly for that.
Again though, she is not actually piloting the ship, only giving orders.
Even though Sulu is an experienced pilot, taking the ship out of space dock under power is still prohibited for a reason. If something were to go wrong and a quick decision had to be made, Savick would be the one giving orders to correct the problem. That's what makes Kirk nervous, not the piloting skill involved but the decision making required in an emergency.
Answer: Normally a ship is piloted out of spacedock using thrusters (see ST:TMP). Saavik ordered impulse power.
Answer: Saavik destroyed a simulated Enterprise during her Kobayashi Maru test, with Admiral Kirk chiding her afterwards. When Spock invites Saavik to take the real Enterprise out of space dock, Kirk is obviously nervous because he thinks Saavik is unready for command, as she destroyed the Enterprise earlier.
To my original point though, she is not actually touching any controls, only giving orders. The Enterprise was destroyed in the simulation during a Klingon attack, which is very different than guiding a ship out of spacedock. Not to mention the fact that the simulation is designed to make the cadet fail.
The whole scene is about Spock taking a dig at Kirk's ego. Being the only cadet in Starfleet history to ever actually beat the Kobayashi Maru test (albeit by trickery), Kirk has an inflated standard for what constitutes "readiness for command," and it shows in his reaction. Knowing full well that it will raise Kirk's hackles, Spock deliberately invites Saavik to handle the simple space dock maneuver. McCoy also knows that Kirk will over-react, which is why he offers Kirk a tranquilizer.
21st Jan 2018
Flight of the Phoenix (2004)
Question: Why was the camel left with the 2 murdered men?
Answer: It is stated very plainly that the Arabs left the camel behind because it was lame. This was a dramatic device to demonstrate the Arabs' ruthlessness: They murdered two human beings in cold blood, but allowed a lame camel to live. Note that the camel scene appears in the 1965 film, but not at all in the 2004 film.
7th Jan 2018
From Hell (2001)
21st Dec 2017
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Question: I don't understand why Kylo Ren killed Han in the previous movie, but now says that he didn't hate Han?
Answer: As he says, "let the past die. Kill it, if you have to." Han was his past - he didn't hate his father, but his existence was holding Kylo Ren back from reaching his full potential, or so he believes. The principle is demonstrated earlier in the movie when he can't bring himself to kill Leia, but has no issue with the other TIE pilots blasting the bridge and (he thinks) killing her. He wants to free himself from the shackles of his parents, who cause him such internal conflict. Remove the source of the conflict and he believes he can move on to greater things. Of course, arguably his position is a bit naive, and his actions will actually cause him greater problems down the line.
Answer: As we saw in Episode 3, with Anakin Skywalker, turning to the Dark Side profoundly changes one's loyalty to friends and family. Anakin murdered children and nearly murdered his pregnant wife and his lifelong mentor. Kylo Ren seemed to follow the same path on the Dark Side, murdering his father.
Just pointing out that in Episode III Anakin did kill Padme, just not immediately. She gave birth to Luke and Leia and then died.
20th Dec 2017
Dante's Peak (1997)
Question: I'm asking this because I don't really know a lot about volcanoes but, at the beginning of the movie, Harry was in the middle of a volcano eruption with: rain; rocks falling etc. When the volcano in Dante's Peak erupted, it was different from before, meaning that there was no rain (but ash), rivers strong enough to break a dam, burning water, dead wildlife etc. Even at the end of the movie, the volcano still had one more eruption before it finally died down. My question is, are all volcano eruptions not the same or are they just unpredictable when they explode? It just seems kind of odd that Harry was experiencing different things in nature after the volcano exploded. I hope I explained this enough; I'm just curious is all.
Answer: Volcanic eruptions can range from ash eruption to hot gas eruption to lava eruption to explosive eruption. Movies tend to inaccurately lump all of these eruptions together.
Answer: Volcanoes can differ because of type of volcano, type of eruption, and region. The Pacific Northwest has a history of volcanoes that erupt not lava, but rock, gas, and ash. Other regions (like Hawaii and Central Africa) erupt primarily lava. Age of the volcano is also a factor.
16th Dec 2017
Die Hard (1988)
Question: As Al arrives, the terrorists run to a window and talk in German, laughing at him. What are they saying?
Answer: Based on the original film, it's almost impossible to say, as the actors could not actually speak German and were faking it. A search of the Die Hard script shows no specific German words or phrases, only vague notations such as "they speak briefly in German"; so, the German dialogue scenes were improvised outside of the script. Thus, most of the terrorists' "German" dialogue is incoherent gibberish with terrible pronunciation and grammar, such that it's incomprehensible. When they released this film in Germany, they even changed the terrorists' nationality from German to "European" (rather than insult German audiences with the garbled, nonsensical dialogue). Supposedly, when the movie was first released on VHS, they went back and dubbed in real German dialogue, but I've never seen or heard that version.
Answer: "nür einmal" - literally "only one"
"Nür ein mann" - literally "only one man".
Answer: I wonder why they didn't take the German subbed version for it where they say "Wieviele Bullen sind es?" to which the other one replies "Nur so ein Fettsack" which translates to "how many cops are there?" "Just one fat guy" and is grammatically correct.
Answer: I always thought that they were discussing the fact that it was just the one policeman responding. Something about einman meaning one man. But that's my broken gcse German from secondary school.
Answer: "Neuer ein man..." literally means 'One new man." But he says it more Anglicised so "neuer" sounds like English "newer."
Nür ein Mann is what's said - Only one man.
I believe it was 'nur ein man' - or 'only one man'.
16th Dec 2017
Apollo 13 (1995)
Question: What did Houston mean by they need Omni bravo?
Answer: The Apollo spacecraft had 4 omni-directional control antennas, designated A, B, C, and D. "Omni Bravo" was the B antenna. When Mission Control in Houston said they needed Omni Bravo, it meant they wanted Apollo 13 to try to activate the B antenna.
What were Omni-directional control antennas?
Omni Directional Control Antennas were capable of sending and receiving signals from any direction. The Apollo 13 spacecraft had 4 redundant antennas of this type, which allowed Mission Control in Houston to remotely control certain systems when necessary.
Answer: Omni directional antennas can broadcast in any direction at once, as opposed to one that can only broadcast to a particular spot.
3rd Aug 2005
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: At the end, a tripod collapses after behaving erratically for an hour, because the aliens inside were dead or dying. If so, wouldn't the tripod just stop moving and stand there because the aliens were too sick to operate it?
Answer: Or they had a mental link with the tripods.
The tripods are a mech suit for the aliens.
Answer: Depends on exactly how the disease affected the aliens. They might have entered a state of dementia and started piloting erratically, or even just have muscle spasms that knocked the controls around inside the cockpit.
Answer: Remember, when the tripod is spotted acting erratically, a cloud of birds are seen swarming the vehicle (presumably feeding on the dead/dying aliens inside). We can speculate that, although the aliens inside were incapacitated by disease, the tripod itself was probably functioning on auto-pilot with no precise operator control. Vulnerable, the staggering tripod was then an easy target for the military rocket-propelled ordnance, which easily brought the tripod down.
The birds weren't feeding on the dead aliens. Ray noticed that they were landing on top of tripods, showing that the force fields that had protected the machines and were impenetrable to military weapons were no longer operable. The military could then destroy them.
In the original H.G.Wells story, it is plainly stated that the birds were feeding on the dead aliens. So, the aliens are already dead, even though some of the tripods were still staggering around on autopilot.
Answer: Its theorized the tripods are bio-mechanical (half organic half machine) and so the system itself can get infected.
Answer: In the original H.G.Wells story, it is plainly stated that the birds were feeding on the dead aliens. So, the aliens are already dead, even though the tripods are still staggering around on autopilot.
Answer: It's a vehicle. If the driver dies or begins to die and is unable to control it properly, it's not going to be a smooth ride. Just like someone might drive erratically when sick or incapacitated, the tripods are going to movie a little "wonky" due to what's happening to the drivers.
24th Nov 2017
K-Pax (2001)
Question: Despite Dr. Mark Powell's certainty that "Prot" is a delusional man named Robert Porter who lost his mind and attempted suicide years earlier, no explanation is ever given for Prot's extraordinary resistance to powerful psychiatric drugs, his superhuman vision (into the Ultraviolet range), and his knowledge of deep-space astrophysics, which not only rivals but exceeds the knowledge of Earthly astrophysicists. Prot's enigmatic abilities are tested by experts, and the experts are left scratching their heads. The probability that Prot actually is an alien entity occupying a deeply-damaged and "discarded" human body seems confirmed on many levels, above and beyond the rantings of a mere mental patient. So, why does Dr. Powell consistently reject the hard evidence before his eyes?
Answer: He rejects it for two main reasons. First, each of the items you mention have possible, even if unlikely, explanations. Some people have strange or no reaction to certain drugs (for example I have almost no response to any painkillers). People who have had their corneas replaced with artificial lens can see near ultraviolet (though nowhere near 300-400 angstroms). The sheriff described Porter as being very bright, and he was in to astronomy, so while a great stretch, not impossible he somehow formulated the information he presented. The second reason, building upon these, is Occam's razor. As a person in the sciences, Dr. Powell is driven to believe things have a reasonable explanation, even if we don't currently know what it is, and thinking Prot is just a bright and unusual human is a more reasonable belief to him than believing Prot is an alien possessing a human's body.
Just remarking, there's no comparison of painkillers and psychiatric drugs. Thorazine and Haloperidol (Haldol) are both powerful anti-psychotic drugs with numerous side effects. Prot is immune to Thorazine and Haloperidol (as well as alcohol), which is more than extraordinary, it's otherworldly.
2nd Nov 2017
Iron Man (2008)
Question: When Stark and the men protecting the soldiers are attacked by terrorists, the terrorists fire a weapon that fires a lot of rounds, that go through the a jacket, the soldier's body, and the car's door. Does such a weapon exist in real life? Is so, what is it called?
Answer: It's called an anti-personnel device (or anti-personnel explosive) that showers a target area with shrapnel distributed every 2 inches. It's intended to kill every person within its blast radius. The curious thing is that Tony Stark was untouched in the first anti-personnel attack, even though his bodyguards and the HumVee were perforated.
Answer: It could be a manual triggered claymore, small ones are able to penetrate light armor up to 50meters (55yards).
Answer: Later in the scene, Stark realises the terrorists are using Stark Industries weapons. In the Marvel Universe, as is evidenced by the various Iron Man armors/weapons, Stark Industries makes some pretty awesome weaponry.
Answer: It could be armor piercing ammunition, which would go through certain materials, but it's more likely that it was just done for dramatic effect with a few liberties taken on what real world weapons are capable of.
17th Nov 2017
I Am Legend (2007)
Question: How did Anna get into Neville's house after she rescued him? I understand how she got to the house, but if he was unconscious or delirious how was she able to enter the premises with the locks and traps all set up?
Answer: The easy answer is that it's a plot hole. We can, however, speculate that Robert Neville himself guided Anna and Ethan inside the fortified home; but Neville just doesn't remember it because he was, as you mentioned, injured and delirious. The progression of the film from his rescue until he regains consciousness is solely from Neville's point of view, and he obviously had a memory lapse.
Answer: As mentioned previously Anna parallels the Ruth character in the source novel. These plot holes left for us by sceenwriter Protosevich are ingenious...I am truly surprised that so few people have noticed these parallels. Anna gets in because she is a vampire herself albeit she has changed and is part of a new society - perhaps the one in Vermont.
15th Nov 2017
Titanic (1997)
Question: If Rose is recalling her story on the Titanic to everyone, it's one thing where the scenes involving Rose herself or anything she witnessed could be retold... but how is it all the rest of the scenes (not involving Rose) be shown accurately in her story when she was not there (other passengers, crewmen conversations, etc.)?
Answer: Of course, Rose couldn't possibly relate incidents and conversations that she didn't personally witness. Rose's story merely serves as a dramatic conduit by which the audience is transported back in time to experience the last days of the Titanic.
I read somewhere that the scenes that Rose didn't specifically witness may have been filled by other eye witnesses and recorded in the inquiry after the sinking. Eg: when the Captain is told by Ismay to light the remaining boilers to get into New York on Tuesday and surprise the press there is a women in the background drinking tea who glances up and towards the Captain and Ismay apparently over hearing the conversation. She could have survived and told the inquiry what she overheard.
Answer: While we can accept that the scenes involving Rose are accurate (or as accurate as can be after 85 years) the rest is just shown to be for entertainment purposes.
While parts are fictionalized, much of what was depicted in the movie was based on the recorded narratives of the Titanic survivors, both crew and passengers.
6th Nov 2017
Iron Man (2008)
Question: How did the ten rings the make the two vehicles explode in the scene where the attack Tony and the military? I didn't see any missiles hit them.
Answer: The Ten Rings terrorists probably had C4 explosive buried under the road and exploded them remotely when the vehicles went over them. The terrorists had planned this assault far ahead.
Answer: It's important to remember that Obediah Stane was secretly supplying the terrorists with cutting-edge military technology produced by Stark Industries (much of it invented by Tony Stark himself). The terrorists didn't need "improvised" explosive devices, because they were using state-of-the-art Stark Industries equipment and ordnance. In fact, just a moment before he is mortally wounded by the anti-personnel explosive, Tony is horrified to see "Stark Industries" printed on the bomb casing.
Answer: The lead vehicle most likely ran over an IED (improvised explosive device) that would have been buried in the road like a landmine. It's also possible the IED was remotely triggered by the terrorist waiting to ambush the group.
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: As he stated many times throughout the series, Mulder needed Scully to be sober and skeptical. Whenever Scully's skepticism wavered and she started questioning her own rationality, Mulder would try to restore her sense of skepticism, because he needed her to be clear-thinking.
Charles Austin Miller