Question: Marty shows Doc in 1885 the image of the tombstone, and he says that he wished he'd paid Buford off. Why can't he just round up 80 dollars to give to Buford and apologise for not doing that in the first place?
Answered questions about specific movies, TV shows and more
These are questions relating to specific titles. General questions for movies and TV shows are here. Members get e-mailed when any of their questions are answered.
Answer: Buford was a crazed gunfighter, even if they paid off the $80 that wouldn't have satisfied him. He loved to shoot and kill. He wanted a showdown to show people he is to be feared and not messed with.
Question: Assuming anyone saw this deleted scene on the DVD special features. Why would Lacy even go to Smallville?
Answer: Lacy had gotten tired of her dad's newspaper, big-city life and decided to move to Smallville because she wanted to experience life at a much slower pace and even decided to live on a farm.
Question: At the end, who was part of the travelling circus that Mattie didn't like?
Answer: It was Frank James, brother of Jesse. He didn't stand up as she approached. She was offended by his lack of manners.
Answer: Rooster Cogburn. She considered him a legendary lawman, like Wyatt Earp. She felt bad that he was reduced to being a sideshow attraction in a circus.
Question: In order for the game to end, the player has to lose his or her last life. As such, the closing screen shouldn't end with Ralph being thrown off the roof, but rather with Fix-it Felix doing the lie down holding a lily, with Ralph standing at the top of the ruined building in triumph. So why does the end of a successful day show the aftermath of Ralph being thrown off the roof of the building?
Question: Does anyone know why Pamela Anderson quit?
Answer: I read that Pamela departed the show because she had become pregnant with her second child.
Question: Did August's dad know he had a son? And did August figure out who his parents were at the end and did he see them at the concert?
Answer: The answers, in order, are: "No", not initially but "yes" later; "Yes" and "yes." Their plan to meet the next day didn't work out, so August's parents ended up having a "one-night stand." When August's father - as well as his mother -heard the music that August was conducting, they were drawn to it like magnets. With his back turned against the spectators, August got the feeling that his parents were there. When he turned around to look, he saw his mother and father. The mother and father instantly knew that August was their son and August knew they were his parents.
Question: How did Brand knows where to find Mikey and The Goonies at the abandoned restaurant?
Answer: Brand didn't know specifically where the Goonies went, but he got on the bike and went searching. Viewers didn't get to see how many places Brand looked before he found them at the restaurant or how much time it took him, but he probably biked down the one road in town until he spotted their bikes and then looked nearby. The fact that Brand apparently found the Goonies within a short amount of time suggests that there were relatively few places that they could have gone, probably because they lived in a small town that was at least semi-rural. Other than old houses, there were only a few landmarks (including the restaurant and lighthouse). There may have been spots that kids tended to gravitate toward and Brand might have had a good idea as to where they most likely went.
Question: The first "Friday the 13th" movie gave me the impression that Jason drowned while trying to swim alone at night. However, this movie shows that a group of campers pushed him into the lake during daytime. Which scene portrays his actual death?
Answer: Jason drowned in the lake and wasn't a very good swimmer. Maybe the kids pushed him in as a "joke" and the counselors weren't watching him. Hence how he "died" because nobody was there to save him, as two counselors were making love.
Answer: Jason didn't drown at night. I just watched a YouTube clip of Mrs. Voorhees talking to Alice (in the first movie). She says that she working the "day" that it happened. There are visions of Jason in the water. They appear dark in tone, but show enough light for a daytime setting.
Answer: It was the original Friday the 13th. Nobody anticipated there'd be a crossover. I think director Ronny Yu did this change for the sake of making Jason sympathetic.
Question: At last when Cage wakes up and the battle is won, does that mean Cage is forever immortal? Because whenever he will die, the day will reset itself, even if he dies of old age, the day will reset. So will he live immortally?
Answer: No, he got the ability to reset time from the aliens. They are dead now so the ability won't work anymore.
Answer: It depends on how you view the reset power. When he and Rita have the Alpha's blood in them, they had the power to reset the day when they died, but that power wasn't their own. It was the Omega that was resetting the day, which it did whenever an Alpha died. But now that the Omega is dead, there's no reset power, so when Cage does die, even with the Alpha's blood in him, he won't return to the past. Now if somehow having the Alpha blood resets the day for Cage, even with the Omega's death, all he'd have to do is get a blood transfusion again and he'll lose the ability to reset.
Question: Alfred comes up to Bruce who is examining print dust on the safe after his mother's necklace was stolen. Alfred says to him "This is your idea of sounding the alarm, is it?" What does he mean? I don't understand this line.
Chosen answer: The reason why Alfred says "This is your idea of sounding the alarm" is specifically because Bruce has not sounded the alarm. From Alfred's point of view, he has been told by Bruce that they have been robbed, but the only thing Bruce is doing is examine the safe for fingerprints. He found it odd that Bruce's idea of trying to find the culprit was looking for fingerprints and not actually sounding the alarm and having the place locked down so that they can find the burglar.
Question: What's up with the chicken being crushed? I don't see how it could be fake. I assume it was an accident, but why would they continue like nothing happened? And why would they put it in the movie? And why haven't I seen anyone mention it?
Answer: It does appear to be unintentional (or at least, unscripted), but they continue because when you're shooting a movie, you don't stop until you hear "cut", and especially at that time animal welfare wasn't necessarily a priority. I'm guessing no-one was concerned about the chicken, and so didn't feel the need to do anything about it. It's possible the film was made without an animal welfare monitor on set. As to why it's in the movie, the whole "marching to the prison" sequence was probably handled by the assistant director (as shots like this, not involving the principals or any substantive dialogue, often are) and they may have only done the one take. Who knows, they may have thought the injured chicken added realism to the scene.
The Crossing - S3-E3
Question: How did the priest at the end die?
Answer: He was in an accident.
Question: Is it ever indicated that it's Starbug 1 used throughout the series?
Answer: They do occasionally specify Starbug 1, but it has also been destroyed multiple times and the interior changed. They either rebuild the ship or change the designation of one of the other Starbugs.
Question: Who would have a tombstone made for Jason?
Answer: Someone who wanted to let people know that Jason was truly dead. That the crazed killer of Camp Crystal Lake would no longer be loose in the world.
Answer: Probably regulations so they wouldn't dig up that plot to bury someone else there.
Question: I don't know much about cars. Will someone explain what is humorous about Tammi wrecking a Chevette (her mother's) instead of a Corvette?
Answer: The Chevette was a short-lived, small, economically friendly hatchback. The Corvette was about 3-4 times more expensive new. While the names are similar, they didn't have anything in common other than being manufactured by Chevrolet. The Chevette name was basically meant to mean "baby Chevrolet" since it was so small and not a "baby Corvette." It's unlikely Tammi's mom would have been able to afford a Corvette.
Question: When Mr. Stacks was telling Annie what ingredients to use, and she had only heard of two of them, which two was it?
Answer: Probably steak and tomatoes. But there's really no indication which ones she actually knew (and might have been exaggerating).
Answer: I'm not familiar with this specific part, and I don't know what the third ingredient was, but I'd assume that an orphan during that time period never heard of or had the opportunity to eat steak.
Also, the reply was "Google it." You must also be thinking of a different version of the film since it's not set in the past.
Might be better not to offer replies until you've seen the specific part of the film, given your answer isn't really answering the question asked.
Bishop73 said "probably steak and tomatoes" - which is a guess. Without knowing what the third ingredient was, it is reasonable to speculate that orphans, especially during that time period, never saw, heard of, or had eaten steak. Yes, it is best to actually see that part of the movie, but this is a question that the answer can reasonably be based on conditions of orphanages and the low quality of food fed to them.
Except I made an educated guess based on knowing the scene and all 6 ingredients and indicated there was no in-film indication what the character meant. You still think it was only 3 ingredients and set in the past.
I have seen several versions of "Annie" but none lately. Whether there were three ingredients, six, or a hundred, it is still plausible that an orphan never heard of steak. Perhaps an orphan might know there is a category of food called " meat", and the "slop" in the soup was called "meat." Kids in orphanages were not treated well, were barely fed enough, and the "food" usually was not what would be called nutritious, especially when eaten day after day. Something like steak would not be likely to be served to orphans largely because the institution's limited food budget would be prohibitive - therefore, only cheap foods would be available and many orphans were hungry. Even in contemporary society, steak is not something likely to be served to kids in institutions like group homes.You might be surprised at the type of things kids who come from poverty situations don't know about. [Even some kids from wealthy families don't know that French fries are made from potatoes.]
None of this seems relevant to the actual question. Bishop73's answer was a reasonable speculation which was already qualified, and which you're nitpicking for no good reason. His other answer details all the ingredients involved and you're fixating on "an orphan wouldn't have heard of steak". We don't KNOW, so going on a diatribe about the hypothetical knowledge of orphans is way off topic. Not least because THIS version of Annie has her as a foster kid, not an orphan, and "that time period" is 2014. If you've got a better answer you can provide it as a direct answer, but excessively critiquing someone else's answer isn't helpful or productive.
There's a difference between knowing what steak is and eating it. There were 6 ingredients (not 3); fusilli, pancetta, steak, pomegranate, truffle, and sun-dried tomatoes. You think an orphan is more familiar with fusilli, pancetta, truffle or pomegranate over steak?
Yes, other than pomegranates.
If she was never exposed to steak, she would not know what it was.
Yes, if she was never exposed to steak she wouldn't know it, which is why I said there was no indication. But I can't imagine a scenario where an orphan wasn't exposed to steak, but was exposed to fusilli, pancetta, truffle or pomegranate. I'm an adult that's eaten a lot of different things and I've never had any of those 4 items (although I know what they are), so it's more likely an orphan knows steak, especially it the generic sense as opposed to a specific type of steak being mentioned.
Question: How exactly did Cochran manage to smuggle that massive Stonehenge all the way from England to California?
Answer: He wouldn't have to smuggle it, lots of things are bought in foreign countries and shipped to America. London Bridge in Arizona or put on display in buildings and parks.
Except the news report flat out said the stone had vanished and everyone was freaking out about the theft. It was not obtained by legal means. We're never told how they managed to get it; probably in some supernatural manner.
Question: If they hate their jobs then why not quit and sue their boss?
Answer: It's not easy to just quit and find a new job and they would not have good references. Lawsuits are difficult, being long, involved, and expensive processes with no guarantees of winning. (If one loses, they can be responsible for the other party's legal costs.) The three women were at a distinct disadvantage as they'd be up against an entire company that most likely would protect the boss, as they'd also be liable for allowing his abuse and be forced to implement new policies. The ladies also wanted to take a stand and fight back, not just for themselves, but for the other women who worked there, making positive company-wide changes while keeping the boss locked up.
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: Adjusting for inflation, $80 back in 1885 is equivalent to about $2,143.65 today. Not something you can just conjure up easily, least of all back then. And Marty couldn't just take 1985 money back to 1885 and expect people to accept it.
Quantom X ★
Except that Doc was in 1885 and could have just gone to the bank and withdrew the $80's.
How? He arrives in 1885 and magically has the equivalent of $2,100 already in a bank account? He presumably borrowed it from Buford in the first place precisely because he didn't have that much cash available.
Doc didn't borrow money from Buford. He time-traveled with a briefcase filled with currencies from different time periods, including the 1800s. Doc had shoed Buford's horse for $5, for which Buford never paid him. When one shoe later came off later, causing Buford to be thrown, Buford shot the horse and demanded Doc pay him $75 for it and $5 for a broken bottle of whiskey.
raywest ★
Where would have get the $80 from? You're assuming he had the $80 available to him. The bank wouldn't just give out the money for free.
You can't take out $80 in 1985 money, and give it to someone in 1885. It would look like play money to them. U.S. currency looked a lot different back then.
Ray
Well he could technically get that amount worth in gold or silver.
lionhead
And, as stated, since Doc was in 1885, more specifically, eight months in 1885, he could have just taken the money out of the bank considering he had a job as a blacksmith.
In Back to the Future 2, Doc shows Marty a briefcase full of money from different time periods, including various mid-1800 currencies, that he carried with him in the DeLorean. (There are online screen shots of the contents.) Doc refused to pay Tannen the $80 because he never owed it to him. Tannen was extorting him.
raywest ★