Question: Technically, these people would not die from the neurotoxin directly, so do you think it could have eventually worn off? That is, of course, if the people didn't kill themselves first. The government could have sent in troops with gas masks and everyone put in straight jackets and padded rooms so not to get hurt until the toxin wore off. That could have worked; what do you think?
Chosen answer: If it would/could wear off would be debatable. As far as sending troops in wearing gas masks: The masks are simply filters that block molecules of certain sizes. If the neurotoxin molecular structure was small enough, it could pass through the filters. And then there is, if you really wanted to die, you will find a way regardless of the situation.
Question: I was wondering why the man and woman in the last trap didn't use the woman from the bathtub to give the pints of blood? They could have carried her into the room because the door stayed open for about forty seconds.
Chosen answer: Assuming the woman in the bathtub was able to be moved safely the amount of blood gained from her, while still being helpful, would probably not be enough to save the final two survivors from self harm. Without the heart pumping blood you would only get the blood that was in her arm at the moment. You would have to lift her or raise her so gravity would get other blood moving to get enough. Which the final two possibly could have done, but stress of the situation clouded their judgement.
Question: At the end of the movie the town clock that was removed from the train station is shown stored in a basement just as the basement floods. The clock is seen to still be working, but how, given that there was no one there to wind it? As the clock was made during the first world war it would be mechanical, not battery powered.
Answer: It is symbolic, showing that time never stops. Everyone will be swept up by the tsunami eventually. No force of nature can compare to time itself. Nothing at all.
Question: Was Mrs. Collins' son ever found?
Answer: No. He was murdered at age nine. The movie uses creative license to bring up the suspicion that he could have somehow survived to create a dramatic hope in the end. Moreover, the killer was very unstable and retracted his testimony more than once. There is no solid proof of the boy surviving the killings. The police even found partial evidence of Walter Collins at the burial site. See the Wikipedia article for more information.
Question: What was the real purpose of that short last scene of the movie? Our guess was that it was to advertise Rock Band. Anyone agree?
Answer: I think it was to show that Jerry and Rachel maintained a friendship after it all. Also to maybe, maybe hint about some kind of romantic future in the way that Rachel says, "you remembered", when her ex-husband was said to never have remembered Sam's birthday. That's my thoughts - I think it's just to let us know how the characters turned out.
Question: When the couple go to the guy to help get rid of the ghost, he touches the picture and sees images. He then tosses the picture at them while yelling in Japanese and causing the couple to flee. What is the translation of what he was saying? Joshua Jackson tells his wife what the guy "said" but to me it looked like he was lying.
Answer: I think he said something like "What you've done cannot be undone. You'll always be with her. I cannot and will not help you."
Question: Just need to check on this. I just saw the new X-Files movie last week and believe that I saw a funny mistake in the movie. At a certaian part in the movie Mulder goes to call Scully on his cell phone and when he gets to her name it in fact says Gillian not Scully. Anyone else see this?
Answer: Sadly, it's not true - already been submitted and corrected. When we see the screen, it reads "Scully" correctly. All the other names on the screen are surnames of crew members who worked on the TV show, including, immediately underneath Scully's name, Gilligan, for Vince Gilligan, a writer on the show. Understandably, given the brevity of the shot, this is easily misreadable as Gillian.
Question: At the very end of the film when Angie is dragged, in the background it doesn't look like any figure dragged her? Shouldn't we have seen at least the upper body of a figure grabbing and dragging her? It looks like she was dragged a long way, so why isn't there any evidence of her being dragged by any human figure?
Answer: Purely done for suspense reasons. Seeing the figure of something walking up behind her, grabbing her and dragging her away would have less of a "jump" factor than what happened in the movie, which is her being suddenly dragged away into the darkness.
Answer: Whilst they have made a second film, 10 Cloverfield Lane, it does not have much, if anything at all, to do with the first film. So we aren't told what happened to Rob and Beth.
Alan Keddie