Question: Why is Annie's picture different from when she was using a black crayon in a circular motion, obviously for the big stone to go through the neighbor's window it's not there anymore when her dad picks up the picture and shows her sister.
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: As Matt Hooper is analyzing the dead body, he yells at Martin not to smoke. Why does he follow that up with "this is what happens" while holding up her severed arm? What does that line refer to?
Question: In the movie they state the colonel cannot be charged because the crime was committed outside of the United States. All active members of the US military like the colonel are subject to the uniformed military code of justice no matter where the crime was committed, so how did the colonel prevent the military justice system from being able to charge him?
Answer: You are completely correct. This is a clear mistake, the colonel could (and would) most certainly be charged for his crimes.
Though unlike the movie, it's not up the attorney to decide if a military member gets charged, it's up to the judge advocate general.
Actually it's not a mistake. The colonel is not a member on active duty in the service. He's ex military. He's the one running the contractor group that carries out the senator's dirty deeds.
Answer: Receiving retirement pay and being in the IRR confers jurisdiction, even over retired military personnel.
Answer: "The colonel" was not active duty military, BUT as a retiree he is still subject to the UCMJ.
How are retirees subject to the UCMJ?
They're not, generally. Some service members who've served for more than 20 years but less than 30 are or were subject to the UCMJ. There was a recent legal opinion overruling this though. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/09/new-bombshell-legal-opinion-says-military-retirees-cant-be-court-martialed.html.
Question: The movie says that the senator who helped the colonel cannot be charged because the crime was committed outside the United States. Is that realistic? If not then why?
Answer: This is not realistic. The Senator would be charged with conspiracy regardless of where the actual crime took place. Simply being overseas does not give an American citizen immunity.
Not even being in a nation without an extradition treaty gives an American citizen immunity?
No, they'd still be charged, but the logistics become harder. Regardless, that's a legal question best suited for another site, not one about movies.
I'm sorry. I was just asking if the idea that senator cannot be charged for his crimes because the crime was committed outside the United States is realistic. I'm not trying to be rude or offensive. If I am I apologize.
Not rude or offensive, it's just that this is a topic with endless articles available elsewhere on the internet, and I try not to let things get *too* off topic around here, otherwise some entries would have pages and pages of unrelated back and forth debates, cluttering up the site somewhat.
Thank you for understanding. I really appreciate it.
I wouldn't know where to look for that says committing in a nation without an extradition treaty doesn't an American citizen immunity.
Question: If the children had run after the kite, and were on the other side of the park, how did they know that Katie Nanna was gone?
Answer: It wasn't exactly specified exactly how far they ran, so they could have been very far away from her. Also, she probably saw them run away but didn't care too much about it, or at least didn't notice their kite, and just left.
Question: When Logan gets fired, is it part of the plan or was it really liability issues due to his bad leg?
Chosen answer: It really was a liability issue, even though as he said it didn't prevent him doing his job. The liability part was that he didn't mention it when he applied for the job.
Question: Did Inspector Leduc die?
Answer: Having just finished rewatching the film again I can say this: the inspector does not die. From a werewolf. The last we see of him is that of him falling down a hole in the ground and landing in some water.
Question: Was the bouncer a werewolf?
Chosen answer: No. He was an ordinary human. This is first shown at Club De La Lune when Claude and his friends turn into werewolves. Many people were running in fear to the doors and when the bouncer is seen outside of the club, he is still in human form.
Question: What kind of dark jacket was Andy wearing at the end with the red and white stripes.
Question: How did they get Andy to the hospital after he banged his head on the Eiffel Tower? It seems highly unlikely there were any elevators around.
Chosen answer: The Eiffel Tower has several elevators in use that they could have taken.
The Silencer - S8-E1
Question: Is the baby that The Silencer left under the tree still alive?
Answer: Yes, the baby boy is alive and well. The Silencer, John Myers, cared for him by giving him his bottle, stayed while he slept, and gave him his pacifier.
Question: Why is Count Dooku/Darth Tyranus not on the poster? Considering that he is the main antagonist of the movie.
Answer: Plus, he's played by an great actor.
It's what's known as a "reveal." Yes, he's played by a famous actor, and yes he's the main antagonist. But the audience isn't meant to know that until later in the film. It's supposed to come as a surprise. If he was on the posters (like Darth Vader was for the original films), audiences would go in expecting him to be the main villain, and wouldn't be surprised at the reveal.
Are you saying that if he's on the poster, the audience will judge that he's the main villain of the movie?
The problem is he is only in the end of the movie. If he was on the poster people will expect him sooner and be disappointed.
Well he is not in the end of the movie. He is just in the middle, though. But why do you say disappointed? I am quite disappointed at first that the main antagonist is not even on the poster.
I am sorry for my mistake saying "He is not in the end of the movie". But what am I going to say is He appears in the middle, though.
Question: There are two scenes I don't understand 1. Burnett goes through a minefield, and then one of the enemy troops accidentally sets the mines off, Burnett starts running through the minefield, and much of the exposing debris. 2. Burnett is in a shop which is fired on. He appears to be close to a shell impact. If one of these scenarios were to happen as shown in the movie, wouldn't Burnett have been seriously injured if not dead?
Answer: 1. What Burnett encountered was actually an alley filled with trip wires, not mines. The explosives on the trip wires all happened to be along the sides of the alley rather then the center. That debris you saw was from the explosives being detonated from a chain reaction. 2. The shell was from a T-72 tank. It was fired at the mall and pierced the outer wall and continued to travel through the shop upon exploding at the far end. It appears that it at the very least heavily shook Burnett and there is evidence to suggest he received some minor wounds to his head via some facial abrasions.
What I meant was shouldn't Burnett have received major injuries?
Question: What was Lokar hiding? And why did he want to keep it a secret?
Answer: Lokar was conducting a genocidal campaign against the Bosniak population, a severe war crime. The photos of the mass grave would have exposed him.
Question: Is it just me or after Barney says to Abby in the tent that they'll find the egg she starts to sniff like an upset person? If so why was she upset?
Answer: For starters, they lost the egg. And second, her feelings were hurt because Cody said that using your imagination is "kids' stuff."
Question: Why was Phil annoyed over Doc taking some food? Is it an Italian thing? Or is Phil just really petty?
Answer: It's a mafia thing. Taking food off another made man's plate in public view like that is comparable to the guy in Casino taking off his boots and putting his smelly feet up on the table.
It is not a "mafia" thing, it's basic manners and plain gross for another person to stick their fingers into a plate of your own food. Same with the feet on the gaming table scene in Casino. It's not a "mafia" thing, it's just rude and not something a person does in public.
Question: When a police officer comes to Kevin's house, the officer rings the doorbell, but since he gets no answer, assumes no one is home. But in real life, wouldn't a policeman break into the house, and then search the house, and then bring the child out of the house, and take to him to his family, just in case a the child did exactly what Kevin did, hiding under the bed or couch? Also wouldn't Kevin's parents get arrested for leaving Kevin behind if the police did find out they left him behind?
Answer: To answer your first question, no. As a right protected under the Fourth Amendment, the police are prohibited from entering a private residence without either a warrant and probable cause or the consent of the homeowner. Since, as you point out, the policeman assumes no one is home, there's no cause to enter; had he heard, say, a cry for help from inside the house, that would constitute an exigent circumstance, an exception that would allow him to enter in order to help someone in imminent danger. To answer your second question, I doubt it. What happened wasn't done deliberately or out of neglect; it was an accident caused by circumstances beyond their control; accidents can, and do, happen.
Answer: No she asked for a police officer to be sent to the house to check on Kevin and make sure that he was OK.
Question: Like the other Losers, Bill says he'd forgotten what happened during their childhood, but when he decides to go back into the sewer, he tells he others he's lived with it and has been afraid all his life. If he forgot, how could it still haunt him?
Question: If Carson's plan indicated he was smarter than Kyle, given the way it was set up, then why did it fail? I know Kyle worked out he was a terrorist, what I don't get is what made her eventually become suspicious of him. Was Carson arrogant or something? Did he make mistakes in his plan, if so what? What mistakes did he make that made his plan fail?
Answer: This was a conspiracy involving a number of people, so it was not Carson's plan alone. Any plan, no matter how well plotted, will have flaws and unexpected variables. Kyle didn't suspect Carson until the very end when she was talking to the captain, who thought she was a terrorist extorting money. Not every detail of how she fully realised Carson's involvement is explained, but when Kyle saw she was being framed, and as Carson nervously attempted to leave the plane, knowing the plan was unraveling, Kyle cobbled together various clues and made an accurate assumption that Carson had been orchestrating the events during the flight.
How realistic would Carson's plan be anyway?
Question: Does anyone know where I can find the black and white blink-182 poster Dawn has in her bedroom?
Answer: Amazon might have one. Https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_5/135-6046169-9238005?url=search-alias%3Dgarden&field-keywords=blink+182+poster&sprefix=blink%2Cgarden%2C157&crid=1WYLSSHH0NT7F.
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: I watched a clip of this scene, and it appears that part of the original dialogue was edited out. Hooper is referring to what happens when a shark goes into a feeding frenzy.
raywest ★