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.

Question: Is Mary Magdalene really buried at the Louvre, or are they just making that up?

Answer: Come on. The whole book and movie are a work of fiction. The whole thing is "made up" with a few references to historical events and a few real organizations thrown in.

wizard_of_gore

Answer: It is believed that "possibly" Mary's remains are there.

Answer: According to IMDB's trivia section, Rose says Jack's name 80 times, whilst Jack says Rose's name 50 times.

Lummie

Answer: While I have not seen this bit, I believe this bit is from the episode "Just One Bite". Squidward smells some gas and a giant mechanical hand comes down with a match burning the Krusty Krab. Apparently many versions of this episode have had this scene edited for certain reasons.

Lummie

Question: Wouldn't David & Jennifer's mom be worried about the sudden disappearance of her daughter, seeing as how Jennifer stayed behind in Pleasantville rather than returning to the "real world"?

Answer: We don't see much of the "real world" after David returns other than his conversation with his mother. I am sure in time she would have been worried but there seem to be many unanswered questions which might make it not so simple.

Lummie

Considering that a couple of days in Pleasantville turned out to be just an hour in the real world, it's possible Jennifer could spend 3-4 years in uni and cone back with it being just a weekend in the real world. David could just make up something in that period she's gone.

Actually if a couple of days is just an hour than 3-4 years is more than 2 weeks.

lionhead

Question: When you see the baker on the ship when it is sinking, he climbs over the railings. Surely when the ship split in half, the force should have knocked him off?

Answer: The baker is a real person who was the last live person to be pulled from the water. He was drunk and from his account of what happened he held on with all his might as the ship broke in half and then he rode the ship down, he even said he didn't even get his head wet. Because he was drunk no one knows the real story but the filmmakers put that in there to show his story. So no the force didn't knock him off, it didn't knock Jack or Rose off either.

Disney-Freak

Question: What is the juggernaut's actual power (in the film, not the comics)? It says he can't be stopped if he has built up momentum, but that would be based on mass and velocity, neither of which seemed to change when he approached Leech, yet he was knocked out by the wall.

Answer: Yeah, well, that's it - he's unstoppable once he gets underway. The mechanics behind this aren't clear, but it's clearly based on more than just his mass and velocity. It seems likely that it's a combination of something resembling super-strength (but tied directly into his movement) and something to protect him from the effects of the impact. Within range of Leech, both of these are disrupted, so he neither penetrates the wall nor is protected from the impact, and thus is rendered unconscious.

Tailkinker

Question: If Norman Osborn owns Oscorp, why is it that the board members decide that the company is going to be sold? Shouldn't it be Norman's decision?

Answer: No, that doesn't always follow. Osborn founded Oscorp, but that doesn't mean that he has sole control over the company. Presumably at some point in the past he's had to bring in outside investors, who have taken up seats on the board and have a degree of control over the company. If the directors, working together, possess a greater share of the company than Osborn himself does, then they can overrule him completely.

Tailkinker

Question: By the buses, when Jenny's boyfriend apologizes for hitting her and mentions "that lying S.O.B. Johnson", who is the Johnson he is referring to?

Answer: Johnson refers to Lyndon Johnson, the US President.

William Bergquist

Answer: He's referring to president Lyndon Johnson AKA the guy Forrest shows his gunshot wound to.

Question: How did Marvin get the point of view gun to function the way it did (The front part popping open and firing a huge, wide-coverage blast)? That never occurred any other time the weapon was fired, and Marvin couldn't have known how to do it since they had recently discovered the gun.

Answer: Marvin does have a brain the size of a planet! He could have easily worked out the controls or directly interfaced with the weapon.

Sierra1

Question: Tom Hanks told Sophie that she was the heir of Christ and she was not the little girl in the accident which killed all four family members. Why did Sophie have memory of the accident which was shown when she was trying to help Tom Hanks relieve himself from his phobia inside the armored truck?

Answer: Tom Hanks NEVER said that Sophie wasn't in the car crash. What he said was that her last name was really "St Clair" (The same name as the family that died), and the press reported her dead as well. The man she called her grandfather wasn't really related to her, he just took care of her and gave her his name. That is why she could find no records of her family's death, she was looking for the wrong name.

Soylent Purple

Question: Could someone please tell me what happens in the extra scene with Professor X after the credits roll? I made the stupid mistake of leaving before they were over.

Answer: We see the hospital bed of the man mentioned earlier in the film in the ethics class, the one who has no higher brain function - Xavier asks if it would be ethical to transfer the mind of somebody dying into his body to keep them alive. We see Moira McTaggert checking on him - as she does so, he turns his head towards her and we hear Xavier's voice saying "Moira?" She's clearly shocked, then the scene ends as she says "Charles?"

Tailkinker

Question: When Mystique is tied up and she keeps changing into different people, why can't she merely turn into something small, like a rat? She would easily be small enough to be free of whatever was keeping her tied and could crawl through the bars.

Answer: There are limits to the size changes that she can perform. She's known to operate within the standard size ranges for adults and, up to a point, children, but there's no indication that she's capable of going down to rat-size - assuming that her mass remains constant, the density required at that size would probably make it impossible to function.

Tailkinker

Question: In the danger room (the simulation place), is it a sentinel robot that Wolverine beheads?

Answer: Not specifically, it's an adversary created by the Danger Room, but it's certainly a nod towards the Sentinels, which, so far, don't appear to exist within the movie series.

Tailkinker

Question: Is there really a point to Arch-Angel being in this movie?

Answer: This is answered in the trivia section; the original X-Men were Professor Xavier, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Iceman, Beast, and Angel - they chose to include them all in this film.

Kimberly Klaus

Answer: It's there in the comics, although it's largely been replaced with a mutual respect after working together for as long as they have in the comic stories.

Tailkinker

Question: This actually may not be on the movie, but it's bothering me: If the Ministry knows exactly when Harry conjures the Patronos spell, how come they can't tell when Voldemort uses the Avada Kedavra curse, which is supposed to be much stronger?

Answer: Only underage witches and wizards are monitored for using magic outside Hogwarts, and Harry in particular has always been closely watched. Any use of magic by him would immediately be noticed. It's not until the end of HP and the Order of the Phoenix that the Ministry of Magic finally acknowledges that Voldemort has returned. Until then they were not searching for signs of him. Also, Voldemort has supporters working within the Ministry who could have hidden evidence of his presence.

raywest

Answer: There is a long standing rivalry between Texas and Oklahoma, so being a loyal Texan he would make fun of Oklahoma.

pross79

Answer: To tease him. Kaylee is the only one who likes Simon at this point, so the others don't mind playing a rather mean-spirited joke on him.

Grumpy Scot

Question: The Irish man uses the "F expletive" in one of his first scenes. Would that word have been in existence then?

Answer: It might have as the word is very old. But since it has always been considered very obscene it doesn't appear much in written form (before modern time). The earliest written occurrence known is in a poem from before 1500. But regardless of whether the word existed or not; the dialog in Braveheart is in contemporary English, since 13th century Scottish would be impossible to understand for the average moviegoer. So it's not a mistake for a character to utter the f-word.

Andreas[DK]

Answer: There's also lots of f-words in Luc Besson's The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc by The English Commanders.

Question: The movie's whole point is that emotions have been stamped out, correct? So why does Taye Diggs smile almost constantly and shows obvious glee, and the Vice Councilor pounds the table in rage. Wouldn't the elite of the government be the ideal?

Answer: Because of their display of emotions it is clear that the elite are not taking their Prozium. If the idea of the emotionless society worked, then yes the elite should be taking their Prozium. However, this society obviously doesn't work and instead of being the solution to all man's problems, Prozium have just become a way of subduing the masses while the elite are free to do as they please.

Andreas[DK]

Answer: I am sure Brandt is dosing every day. He even talks about getting his dose adjusted at the beginning of his partnership with Preston, stating: "I am a wary person, cautious by nature, always expecting the worst." And yet he definitely does seem to display anger and he smiles throughout the movie. In my opinion, the only member of the elite that is NOT taking the Proseum is "Father" since he admits as much to Preston at the very end of the movie, and he eradicated due process for offenders: He is a psychopath and so doesn't need Proseum to suppress emotions he doesn't have. Yet warning Preston at the end that he is "treading on his dreams," shows his narcissism. Maybe Brandt's "emotions" are merely acting, as he was from the start part of "Father's" plan to set Preston up. Therefore, he isn't really "feeling" at all: merely acting. One can act as though one is angry or sad or happy without actually feeling anything at all. I am sure that Brandt never came off his interval.

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.