Question: Brian is noted as not believing in God. How could Brian not believe in God when, in this episode, he has dinner with Jesus who is the son of God?
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.
Question: When Jack is being arrested he tells Rose "I just borrowed it, I was gonna return it." Was he referring to the jacket or the necklace?
Answer: Jack admitting to stealing or borrowing the jacket is a vain attempt to show that it wasn't his and therefore the necklace wasn't his either. He can't explain away the necklace but he can sort of explain the jacket on a way that doesn't make him look as bad. Either way it all comes across as desperation. Rose seems to believe him a little but can't do anything about it, especially when a priceless necklace is involved.
Question: Why did they need the battery attached to the chair exactly? They were able to move around previously without being plugged into the wall, so why the sudden change of being unable to move without the battery?
Answer: A couple things I noticed, in the beginning a lot of times the cords are missing when we should see them, so perhaps Kirby is suppose to be plugged in the whole time. They made it clear he was plugged in as they were leaving, even though they also made it clear Toaster didn't need to be plugged in. But also, it could be the same as lacking a lunch. They could move around without being plugged in, but would still need power at some point the same way people would need to eat. Or because Kirby is doing the heavy work. In the book they made it clear the vacuum needed to be plugged in and was using extension cords at first as they rolled around outside, but they didn't make any indications the other appliances were still plugged in, but the other appliances couldn't move like the vacuum, and certainly not as freely as in the film.
Question: How realistic is the helicopter scene?
Answer: Fixing the helicopter while flying, not possible. Tilting the helicopter on its side, possible.
"Fixing the helicopter while flying, not possible" why is fixing a helicopter while flying not possible?
He would either be blown off or killed by the blades.
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.
Question: Given that the crime is murder why is she paroled after only six years?
Answer: She apparently was convicted in a jurisdiction that used indeterminate (not determinate) sentencing, allowed a life sentence to be "with the possibility of parole" and sentencing philosophy of "let the punishment fit the criminal (not the crime). " When there is no mandatory minimum number of years to be served in prison, a convicted murderer (of various°) could actually serve relatively few years in prison with the remainder of the sentence served outside of prison (such as in a halfway house or residential treatment center, or in her own home under electronic monitoring) provided the offender does not violate the conditions of release. An offender receiving a sentence of "life imprisonment", for example, could serve the first several years in prison and then be released to a halfway house to continue "serving time" outside of prison (with supervision). The years served "in the community" are still "time served" under the sentence - only the location of serving it has changed.
Answer: To start, this film gets a lot wrong about the judicial system and law (including the whole idea that Libby can freely kill Nick because she's already been convicted of his murder). In the film, they just say she's charged with murder, but never what degree. In Washington State, 2nd degree murder generally carries a sentence of 10-18 years (not including felony-murder). However, Washington State did not offer parole at the time of the film like other states did. To be released, she'd have a hearing in front of the Washington State Clemency and Pardons Board, not a Parole Board. And it's unlikely they'd grant her a release. But in Texas for example, she could possibly get parole after serving at least half her sentence.
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.
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.
Question: Is the Canyon of the Crescent Moon a real place, or was the shot of the canyon as seen from Donovan's binoculars just a place created for the film?
Chosen answer: The Canyon of the Crescent Moon is fictional, but based on the real entrance to the Treasury (Al Khazna). The Bab as-Sīq is the wide valley leading to the Sīq, the narrow gorge entry.
Question: Why wasn't Erickson punished for being out of tune and not knowing it? Also, what would Fletcher have done if Metz said he was out of tune?
Answer: Erickson isn't punished because, in Fletcher's mind, the greater sin is not being out of tune, or even of not admitting to it, but of not knowing it...Erickson knew he was out of tune (or at least, Fletcher thinks he did), so Fletcher let it slide. As to the second questions...do you mean, if Metz had said that Erickson was out of tune (because he does say he, himself, is)? Given Fletcher's personality and volatile nature, it's hard to say...he might have respected Metz for being able to identify who was out of tune, or he may have been even angrier at him for being a snitch. Probably the only person who can say for sure is Damien Chazelle. But I don't think there was anything Metz could have said in that moment that would have saved him.
The Electric Can Opener Fluctuation - S3-E1
Question: On the way from the Arctic expedition, why would Howard and Raj go with all their baggage to Leonard's and Sheldon's apartment instead of going home first? (00:00:01)
Answer: The four of them had just returned from a three month expedition in the North Pole. They were exhausted, they haven't had a proper wash or shave, they had loads of scientific equipment with them in addition to their own personal luggage. They probably just needed a place to go to in order to cool down, sit and have a rest, put down the equipment used for the expedition and sort through which of their belongings were which. And since Sheldon was the one in charge of the expedition and the apartment is home to half the people there, it was likely the most suitable place to settle down in. Once they had some time to rest and get back up on their feet, they would have gotten their belongings and gone home.
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.
Question: Did actor Robert Lansing ever make any comments on Star Trek in general or "Assignment: Earth" (TOS S2E26) in particular? His co-star in this episode/pilot, Teri Garr, had a sour, cynical and dismissive opinion of "Assignment: Earth" and Star Trek fandom (Starlog #173). But what was Robert Lansing's feeling about his experience on Star Trek? Did he like it, hate it, was he excited about the prospect of entering into the new "Gary Seven" series; or, like Teri Garr, was Lansing glad to put it behind him? I've never seen or heard anything about Lansing's personal views on the show.
Answer: Robert Lansing said, in an interview, he was reluctant to a television series. He was a Broadway actor and was snobbish about T.V. Especially science fiction shows, which were considered cheesy kiddie programs. But Gene was a friend of his and wrote the part specifically for him. So he did it and admitted to having fun with it.
Thank you, I've always wondered about that. Is there a link to the Robert Lansing interview? I'd be very interested to read it or view it (if it's a video).
Question: How did Jack know Greg was in the bathroom to give him the truth serum? Jack was outside and we simply heard Bernie call out "Gay Gay", but still he could have been anywhere?
Answer: It's not exactly hard to find someone in a small/mid-sized establishment like they one they were in. There's only so many places Greg could be. Jack probably just correctly presumed he was in the bathroom since he wasn't outside.
Question: What was the picture of in the stained glass window?
Answer: As you are already aware, it is difficult to see! As far as I can tell, the large inner circle contains flowers - perhaps one large sunflower at the top and several smaller red flowers (such as tulips or roses) elsewhere plus a deer (or wolf or werewolf) smelling or eating a pumpkin or flowers/grass. The outer two concentric circles appear to be the artist's geometrical designs.
Question: Why do we see Nurse Wilson being taken away in a jail cell at the end of the movie?
Answer: The fire made the authorities discover the abused patients they'd locked in the basement.
Question: Why was Montero looking for Zorro in the prison?
Answer: Zorro was the one person he feared, and wanted to make sure that he was dead or broken and hadn't escaped during his exile.
Question: How come Malcolm could realise he was dead, but none of the other ghosts could?
Answer: Ghosts can't move on until they've completed some unfinished business. Malcolm felt guilty for not helping the kid who shot him. By helping Cole control his powers, he was finally at peace and realised the true state of things.
To add: the little girl Cole helped uncover her murder definitely knew she was dead.
Why do you say she knew? I didn't see any evidence. Cole says ghosts don't know they're dead. The girl wasn't after revenge, but to protect her younger sister, who the mother had started poisoning.
She is one of the few ghosts aware that she can use Cole to help her out. Leading him to the evidence of her murder shows to me she knew she was too late for herself. At the end of the movie it is even revealed that these ghosts probably unconsciously approach Cole for help, so they can move on. They can't do that unless they are aware, or if Cole makes them aware of it. For Malcolm it was even necessary for him to know he was dead before he could say his goodbye. Cole just needs to tell them.
Answer: On top of it, Malcolm only realised he was dead when we saw his wedding ring drop from his wife's hand (he would have had it on him except if he were gone) and he saw her cold breath; these two things together helped him put all the pieces together (that we are shown in the movie) to show that she was grieving and mourning from his death and not that they were growing apart because he was wrapped up in a case (or to put it differently, he was so wrapped up in Cole that he did not notice that he hadn't had a conversation with his wife or even another human being for goodness knows how long - dead people see what they want to see).
Answer: Malcolm didn't realise he was dead until much later in the movie. By then he had a strong relationship with Cole, and being a psychiatrist, wanted to help him understand and cope with his ability and no longer fear it. Being a psychiatrist helped Malcolm analyse his own situation and work out that he had died. Once Cole was comfortable with his ability, Malcolm was able to move on. Also, as Cole noted, ghosts only saw what they wanted to see. Some were unable to come to terms with their deaths and therefore remained among the living.
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: Brian was skeptical that Jesus was who he said he was throughout the episode; this even after Jesus performed the "miracles" of turning people's food into hot fudge sundaes and enlarging Lois' breasts. Being atheist, Brian would also probably not believe that Jesus was the son of God; some Biblical scholars question whether or not the "real" Jesus actually claimed to be the son of God.
zendaddy621