Question: When Marty and Doc are on the train at the end, and Clara shows up, Doc says that Clara will have to go with them to 1985. Why does Doc say that? Someone submitted a correction saying that Clara is better off in 1885 because she was supposed to die so staying in her own period is better than going to the future, so why would Doc suggest such a thing?
jshy7979
3rd Aug 2010
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Answer: They literally had no choice but to take her with them! They had gone past the windmill so they didn't have enough track left to stop the train before it went over the ravine so that's not an option. Doc and Marty are not murderers, they are not just gonna leave her on the train so that she dies! Plus, let's say they didn't care what happens to Clara, you've still got a problem... Clara is in the cab, she has the controls! How long before she just starts pulling random levers, turning random valves etc whilst trying to work out how to stop the train? If the train slows down at all, they will not have enough time to get it back up to speed... Them, the train and the DeLorean would be at the bottom of the ravine.
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.
13th Mar 2011
X-Men 3 (2006)
Question: At the end of the movie, we see that the cure eventually wears off, but doesn't this mean that Rogue and Mystique's powers will return, and that she would join Magneto again, and Rogue stays as an X-Men?
Chosen answer: This is just a little tease thrown in at the end of the movie. Magneto's still got some power left. Will he get his full power back? They don't say. Will other individuals also get theirs back? We don't know. If another film in the series is made that follows this one, some of these questions may be answered - without that, speculation about what characters might do based on a tease shot is, for the most part, pointless. Their powers might return. Mystique might rejoin Magneto, although she might well not - she was pretty angry at him for abandoning her. Rogue might stick with the X-Men. That's it. A whole load of "might".
26th Jul 2010
Inception (2010)
Question: When Cobb finally gets home to see his children at the end why don't they look any different from his memories? The story implies that he's been gone for a long time yet they don't appear to have aged.
Answer: The answer above is solid and I agree, but there's another plausible way of looking at it. It is implied at the end that Cobb could still be dreaming (we never see if the top stops spinning). If that's the case, then he would likely dream his children to be exactly how he remembers them.
Answer: The story really doesn't imply too heavily exactly how long Cobb has been on the run. Very few clues are given, so it could quite plausibly be less than a year since his wife's death, in which case their children would not have aged dramatically. Their voices on the phone seem compatible with children of the ages shown at the end of the film and Cobb shows no concern when reunited with them that they should be older than they are. Two sets of children are listed in the credits, of different ages.
12th Mar 2020
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Doc is quite a resourceful and clever guy. Why didn't he set to work on repairing the flying circuits which would have enabled them to use Mr Fusion to reach 88mph, instead of the engine?
Answer: Mr fusion only powers the flux capacitor. The engine is needed to get the car up to 88mph whether flying or not and the only way to get the car any power is by the use of petrol, which didn't exist in 1885.
At the beginning of the movie, when 1955 Doc reads the letter that 1985 Doc sent to Marty, he reads that the lightning bolt activated the time circuits and at the same time destroyed the flying circuits. Because of this, the Delorean will never fly again.
These answers are correct. Plus, to the original question: as clever as Doc is, keep in mind he got the flying conversion done in 2015. Definitely no way he would have been able to repair something so futuristic with 1885 tools at his disposal. He couldn't even get gas.
Yet just a few years later he had built from scratch a flying time-traveling locomotive, all with 1885 tools and parts.
There's no indication he built the flying train in 1885. It's suggested he had been time traveling with his wife and kids and says he's already been to the future. Whether this is in the DeLorean or the train it's not clear, but the dialogue suggests he's been to the future in his train with the family and could have modified his train to fly with future technology.
19th Aug 2019
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Back in 1885 why doesn't Doc change the letter he sent to Marty, asking him to bring a can of gas?
Answer: When Marty received the letter from Doc in 1955, as seen in the second movie, Doc wrote down that he didn't want Marty to go to 1885 to rescue him because he was happy living in the past. Instead, he wanted Marty to take the Delorean straight back to 1985 and then destroy it so it could never be used for personal gain again.
But once Marty appears in the past Doc could easily change the letter, changing things such that Marty would bring gas with him.
Answer: This would create a different timeline, not the timeline they are in.
Answer: That would not be possible as in 1885, Doc sent the letter on September 1st, and 1955 Doc sent Marty to 1885 on September 2nd so it was a day later and on the 1st, Doc was not expecting Marty to turn up. However, one CAN ask why Marty and Doc didn't go to the local Western Union office and change it (or write a new one) there since it was in their possession per the gentleman in part 2.
Changing the letter while Marty is in 1885 with Doc would accomplish nothing, because it doesn't it instantly travel to the future. Marty at the end of Part II, for his part, may receive the letter almost immediately, but the letter itself had to wait 70 years to be delivered to him.
I mean, there's no solid rules to time traveling, but just for argument's sake it seems like the letter idea could work... in the franchise, when something is set in motion, the effects usually take place immediately. Take for instance when George and Lorraine kissed at the dance in Part 1. The picture of Marty and his siblings went right back to normal, even though the kids had not been born yet. Doc and Marty changing the Western Union letter "could" have had an immediate effect and a gas can could have materialized in the Delorean, much like we've seen newspaper headlines change before our very eyes, disappearing gravestones, etc.
In your examples, the changes occur to future events. The items that changes, like the picture and newspaper, are from the future themselves. They can't change the past by changing events in the future (like they do in Bill and Ted's). This is why Doc and Marty couldn't go back to 2015 to stop old Biff from taking the DeLorean.
6th May 2020
Breaking Bad (2008)
Question: Why didn't Gus try to kill Hector much earlier?
Answer: In an episode of Better Call Saul, we see Gus prevent someone from murdering Hector, and even pay for some of his treatment after Hector has a stroke. He wants Hector to remain alive in the state that we see him: bound to a wheelchair, unable to speak, unable to take care of himself. It's Gus' way of making Hector suffer. He felt a quick death would be letting Hector off too easy.
Answer: Gus considered killing Hector as being "too good for him." He wanted Hector to suffer in the same way he had suffered. Hector killed Gus' partner, so Gus worked to destroy Hector's family before gloating and killing him. Gus even prevented Mike from killing Hector for this very reason.
17th Feb 2015
Better Call Saul (2015)
Question: Should I watch the entirety of Breaking Bad before I watch Better Call Saul?
Answer: It is my opinion that you should absolutely watch Breaking Bad first. If you did not know, Better Call Saul takes place before the events of Breaking Bad. At the time I am posting this, BCS is mid-way through season 5, with season 6 on the way perhaps in a year. So if you binge Better Call Saul now, you would not be able to "flow" right into Breaking Bad. To me, it's better to watch in the order that they came out. Breaking Bad was a phenomenal show, and now watching Better Call Saul, it is fun to watch the events unfold and start to lead up to what we saw in BB. Enjoy.
Answer: Now that it's ended, this question can be fully answered. Better Call Saul includes events after the conclusion of Breaking Bad, as well as references to and descriptions of major events from the latter. Not only would Breaking Bad be spoiled for you by watching Better Call Saul first, but there's a lot that wouldn't be understood.
Chosen answer: So far the show has been about Saul's struggles as a lawyer long before the Breaking Bad timeline (Spoiler Alert: It starts out for the most part at a time when he didn't even go by the name Saul).
15th Mar 2019
The Green Mile (1999)
Question: Paul lived to be an old old man because John touched him. Did Melinda live to be an old women since John healed her of cancer? Nothing was ever said about her but Mr. Jingles lived to be an old mouse.
Answer: John Coffey only transferred "a piece of myself [himself]" to Paul, intentionally and Mr. Jingles, unintentionally. Paul didn't have that power after John cured his UTI and Mr. Jingles didn't have it after John cured him from the attack by Percy. The movie is very clear about that.
Answer: Actually, Paul does mention Melinda as one of the people he has lost along the way. No mention is made of how long she lived, but I would assume that John simply cured her tumor, and she lived the rest of her life as a normal woman.
Answer: Yes she lived for very long and ailment free. But you gotta know Elaine was already much older than Paul was, so even though she lived very long, Paul outlived her. He specifically mentioned her, saying something in the lines of "eventually I even outlived Elaine."
I think you are confusing Melinda and Elaine. Elaine is the woman Paul is recounting his story to, she is considerably younger than him and yet he outlives her. Melinda is the wife of the warden who John Coffey heals. It is not said how long she lives but since Paul specifically mentions his long life being a curse for his role in John's execution, we can assume she was not particularly long lived as he was.
Yes, of course. Melinda. I got the idea that the people who John Coffey heals have long life without ailments. Paul and the mouse are the living proof of that, so why not Melinda? I meant to say Melinda was I think already older than Paul when she was healed by Coffey (although the actress was 40 when this film was made) and thus her life was extended, but less so. She may have died even after Paul's wife, even though he mentions her first. It's still probably been a while though.
Melinda's fate after John heals her is never mentioned. Paul believes he has been cursed with long life as punishment for his role in John's execution. That to me indicates that Melinda didn't live a particularly long life. If she had Paul would have no reason to believe he was being punished.
Besides Mr. Jingles.
Paul mentions Melinda by name when recounting the people that he lost along the way. "Hal and Melinda" are the first names he mentions.
Answer: It would appear, based on what Paul says, that only he and Mr. Jingles were gifted (cursed?) with long life. Paul specifically mentions outliving his family and friends and is shown outliving Elaine as well. Paul speculates that his long life is punishment for his role in executing John, but he says nothing of why Mr. Jingles lives for so long.
Paul says that he believed that what happened to Mr. Jingles was an accident. Meaning he was never supposed to have a long life but, during Del's execution, a small bit of John's healing power accidentally went into Mr. Jingles.
26th Mar 2009
X-Men (2000)
Question: During the Statue of Liberty scene, Magneto is clearly seen to be manipulating the copper inside the statue to bind and tie up the X-Men. How can this be? I thought magnetism wouldn't work on a non ferromagnetic metal.
Answer: Well if he can control ANY metal...why did he have to wait for the guard to be injected with iron? Couldn't he take iron out of food or water? Or even his own body?
The way he took iron out of the Guard, that seemed very painful and it looks like the guard did not survive. So, taking it out of his own body would not have been the smartest of decisions. He needed to wait for the guard to be injected so he could have enough iron to take out to then turn into a weapon, and transportation.
29th Dec 2005
Collateral (2004)
Question: About how long would Annie's cab ride in the beginning of the movie have taken in real time?
Answer: From LAX to Downtown, about 40 minutes to an hour. Depending on the traffic getting out of the airport and heading to downtown.
Living in LA all my life, I can tell you the drive can be made in 20 minutes, without speeding. This is of course given light traffic conditions, which seems to be the case in the movie. Heavy traffic will add time of course, I'd say 45-50 mins at the most. (A quick Google Maps search just put the drive at 22 mins).
8th Dec 2006
Superman II (1980)
Question: In relation to "Superman Returns",since it's supposed to take place after "Superman II," which version is considered canon? The Lester cut or the Donner cut?
Answer: There's been no categorical statement, but given that the theatrically released Lester cut is the one that everybody knows, with the Donner cut being a relatively unknown curiosity, it would seem much more logical to consider that the Lester cut to be the canonical version of the story.
Answer: Bryan Singer has a great relationship with Richard Donner and his wife, whose production company has produced all of the X Men movies, 4 of which Singer directed. Singer would have also directed X-Men: The Last Stand, but decided to do Superman Returns instead. He absolutely made Superman Returns building from Donner's cut of Superman 2. Superman Returns spoiler ahead: in Superman Returns, Lois Lane has a child. We see that the child has superhuman strength, and that it is Superman's son with Lois. In Lester's version, Superman and Lois consummate their relationship after he loses his Kryptonian powers, when he is an ordinary man. This would have made an ordinary child. But in Donner's version, Superman and Lois sleep together when he is still Superman, before he chooses to become an ordinary man, explaining why the child we see in Superman Returns has superhuman strength.
18th Feb 2010
Up in the Air (2009)
Question: I'm fairly positive that one of the African-American female terminated employees, who has a very small but significant role in Up in the Air(trying to avoid spoiling the plot), is Elise Neal. Elise Neal was D.L. Hughley's wife in The Hughleys and also starred in Hustle and Flow. Any reason why she is not credited on the film? imdb.com and other sites do not list her as a cast member.
Answer: It's not Elise Neal, it is Tamala Jones.
Answer: It is not unusual for actors to appear in films in uncredited cameo roles. There's many reasons. Their appearance is not significant enough to warrant a film credit, it is a surprise for the audience, they do it for fun or as a favor to the director or producer, it avoids contract obligations, and so on.
16th Dec 2017
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
28th Feb 2010
Ratatouille (2007)
Question: There are usually references to the next Pixar film in the film (Nemo in Monsters, Inc, Mr. Incredible in Nemo, Toy Story 3 bear in Up). Is there anything from Wall-e in Ratatouille?
Answer: Not in the Ratatouille movie itself, however on the DVD/Blu-ray there is a short about how rats are our friends and there is a sequence about how rats will follow us into space, the driver of one of the shuttles is Wall-E himself.
27th Jun 2014
Seven (1995)
Question: What happened at the crime scene at the start of the film when Somerset asks the other police officer if the victim had kids? (Before Somerset meets Mills).
Chosen answer: A woman shot her husband. The other detective on the scene says to Somerset, "he's dead, his wife killed him."
Answer: It doesn't have anything to do with the main plot of the movie. It's intended to show two things. That Somerset is quitting the police force, and that he values humanity and the world around him no matter how much he may want others to think.
1st Feb 2016
The Hateful Eight (2015)
Question: Maybe I saw it wrong since it happened so fast, but wasn't Minnie shot in the face initially when she was behind the counter? If so, surely she wouldn't still be alive, yet she was still alive when seen a little later on the floor where she is shot again in the stomach/chest.
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: Simply because, believe it or not, it's hard for Doc to kill someone through inaction. He saved her life when she was supposed to die. But that doesn't mean it'd be easy for him to do nothing now and just let her die when he knows he can do something to save her. And by taking her to the future, he is likely thinking he can avoid any other complications that may arise from the fact that she is still alive when she's already supposed to have died.
Garlonuss ★