Question: In the final shot, we see Jill's head move a little. Was that suppose to let the viewers know that she's alive or was it just a mistake?
Answer: I actually read that they noticed this before the movie came out and left it in to keep the ending ambiguous and since they were planning to make Scream 5, they felt that would possibly be the way to go.
That's very interesting, especially now that Scream 5 is finally getting made. Although it doesn't appear that Emma Roberts is returning.
Question: In the last part of the movie, how are they supposed to drive the snow vehicles? There is a scene before where they cut the wires of all the vehicles to disable them for the quarantine. Am I missing something?
Chosen answer: By disabling the snow vehicles, they are making sure that the creature can't use them to escape from the quarantine zone. Since the creature can assimilate anybody, it would probably know how to use one.
Question: At the beginning when Sam is having his premonition and he saves Molly, why does she die in the plane crash at the end? And why did Sam die similar to the guy in the first "Final destination" movie? It couldn't have been him cause Sam and Molly witness him being removed from the plane before they took off.
Answer: To answer your second question, Sam's death is not like any other death's from the first final destination movie. If you are talking about Alex, he was hit by a falling brick off-screen. To answer your first question, near the end, Peter though that Candice had deserved to live more then Molly, and attempts to kill her. Sam kills Peter before he has a chance to stab molly. The gun dropped by peter lands on the stove, and shoots off in the air. This is a sign that Sam saved Molly from dying, thus, putting her on Death's list, and making it all right to kill her on Flight 180.
This is in response to the answer. Your answer is dismissive to the nuance of premonition as depicted by the movie. This is extremely crucial: Premonition, as visioned by every protagonist, is the event that would have happened if the protagonist didn't intervene. Every events in premonition is supposed to be absolutely true. As such, in the premonition, Sam saves Molly. This means if the events weren't intervened by Sam, he would still have saved Molly, while the rest (Sam, Candice, Peter) would have died anyway. So Molly should be safe all along. It wouldn't even be wrong to say that 'death' hadn't even planned to kill Molly at the bridge. So your point about Molly being next in the list because Sam killed peter and death skipping Sam now to go on Molly isn't even valid. So if Molly was clean in death's perspectives all along, why did she die at the end? (because she didn't cheat the design, she wasn't even supposed to be in the list of death's order; as I mentioned earlier, it was never the intention of death to kill Molly as evidenced by the saving of Molly in Sam's premonition).
But Molly didn't die in his vision so she wasn't on the list to begin with so how can he skip someone's death that's not on the list and he kill his friend so why did he still die on the plane with Molly?.
Answer: Molly was never meant to die on the bridge because her and Sam were meant to die on Flight 180, just like how Nick, Lori and Janet were meant to die at the Cafe at the end of The Final Destination. It was basically just a cruel twist of fate that they would be on the exact same plane from the original movie. And Sam dying similarly to Alex doesn't really seem to have much of a purpose, unless maybe as a little throwback to how Alex died in his premonition, or is just a coincidence.
Answer: Molly was never on death's list. Peter killing the detective he then got his remaining years, then Sam killing Peter transferred those years to Sam, so when Sam and Molly were on the plane when the plane explodes that was the time for them to die, I'm not saying they were meant to die on that plane, they were just meant to die at that time. Just like when Nathan accidentally killed Roy who had signs of a brain aneurysm, so Roy would have dropped dead any day, hence when Nathan got Roy's life he died at the memorial, though in a more shocking way.
Question: When Hobbs realises that Dom and Brian left him with an empty vault, Hobbs has a flashback of Leo and Santos loading the real vault onto a truck. My question: was that really a flashback (did he really see it take place and forget?) or was it like Dom's image of Letty's death when he and Mia are at the crash site in Fast Four and not 100% accurate, since he didn't know what Letty's killer looked like yet?
Question: Does Nash call Tom Brant by his real name when at the train tracks when Brant (aka Jason Statham) tries to attack the killer. I thought I heard Nash say "Jason, calm down Jason"?
Answer: Yes; he definitely says Jason.
Question: What (if any) is the significance of the "OZ" graffiti that pops up throughout the film? It became quite distracting as I thought it would pay off at the end of the film.
Answer: The 'OZ' sprayer is a very disturbed man who claims to be an artist but the courts think otherwise. You can found his OZ (which he claims to be read OLI!) everywhere in Berlin and Hamburg. It has absolutely nothing to do with the movie but you can't film a wide open scene in Berlin without taping it.
Answer: Mise en scene. OZ / OLI is firstly a name. Asking what or rather who OZ / OLI is, is the point. One of the main questions of the film is what constitutes a person's identity.
Question: After Alan Krumweide starts spreading misinformation about Forsythia curing MEV-1, we see a scene in a pharmacy being flooded with desperate customers. But if Forsythia is a homeopathic drug, then why is it being sold in pharmacies in the first place? As the characters say later on, it takes months just to get a drug approved, let alone sold.
Answer: Many pharmacies in the US sell homeopathic supplements.
Question: In the scene when Moriarty is doing a book signing, his aide sits and hands him a piece of paper with what looks like some kind of grouped numbers together. What is this and does it get referenced later in the film?
Chosen answer: That's the key code for his fortune concealed in his library. The one Mrs Watson uses to relay to Inspector Lestrade. Like the book reference numbers in a public library.
Question: How does Eddie get away with the apparent murder of the blonde woman in the apartment? I gather that even he doesn't know whether it was him or not but surely the Police would want to at least call him in for questioning at some point? And if it was him, surely, in that situation, it would be difficult to get away without leaving any evidence?
Answer: Although there is no definitive proof, I believe the killer to be Atwood's henchman. During the trip scene we see him following Eddie and the Blonde to their room and although it comes off as an illusion there's no reason it cannot be real. This alone is not enough to say for certain but the main reason I point to the henchman is because of how the story plays out following the murder. Eddie is by an eyewitness (probably someone working for Atwood if not the actual killer) who tells the police about him and as a result he is called into questioning. Because of the inquiry Eddie hires "the best lawyer in the city" who as we know is under Atwood's thumb. It is during this line of questioning the lawyer is able to go into Eddie's jacket and steal his NZT. None of these things would have happened had the Blonde never been killed.
Answer: There was no mention of physical evidence like hairs or fibres, the only evidence the police had was an eye-witness placing Eddie at the scene at the time the murder occurred; the eye-witness failed to I.D. Eddie in the line-up he was called to at the police station so Eddie was released, as the police had no case.
Answer: It was mentioned that the room was wiped clean after the murder. It was probably Atwood who set it all up because he was on NZT and needed some more.
Answer: Did you watch the movie? Lol... Eddie was called in and questioned about the murder. He was able to beat the case because the eyewitness couldn't pick him out of a line-up. Remember, his lawyer arranged to have a line-up full of men that looked just like Eddie.
The point of a line-up is to make everyone look similar to the actual suspect. So, the lawyer didn't do anything shady, and it would have been the police's job to have similar-looking people. A line-up of a mix of people is kind of a movie/TV trope, and the film implying the lawyer rigged the lineup fits into that trope.
Question: Why were the British singing the Russian national anthem during the Christmas party scene?
Answer: As this story was set during the Cold War era, this was a deliberate mockery of the Soviet Union and its policies against holiday celebration and religious freedom. The entire story revolves around the prospect of a Russian Mole among the British Secret Service and Intelligence Community-at that moment, complete with a mocking Stalin Santa Claus, they were letting off steam against their reviled rivals.
Question: On their helmets were two torches (flashlights). The bigger light had two options, an LED cluster and a standard bulb. Wouldn't the battery have lasted longer if they chose the LED option?
Chosen answer: Being someone who uses the PETZL Duo headtorch (the light used in this movie) I can say that yes, the LED option lasts MUCH longer than the standard bulb.
Question: Before he was genetically altered and his real body was used, how did they get Chris Evans to look so scrawny?
Chosen answer: A couple of techniques were used. In most cases, Evans would film the scene normally, then the effects team would digitally shrink his character down to the smaller size. This would generally require some on-set adjustment to allow for eyelines - in some cases Evans would be physically lower than other actors, in others, they would look at his upper chest while he looked over their heads. In a few cases, actor Leander Deeny, who possessed the necessary scrawny physique, would film the scene, collaborating closely with Evans to ensure that the character's mannerisms remained the same. Deeny's features would then be digitally replaced with those of Chris Evans. Deeny appears briefly in the movie as the bartender in the pub Rogers visits to recruit his team.
Question: Was it the decision of the directors to have Ghost Rider killing people rather than using the Penance Stare like in the first movie. I found it odd that Johnny stated that the Ghost Rider would go after anybody such as people who tell little white lies.
Answer: The entire film was designed to have a different tone and feel from the first film, to be accessible to viewers who never saw the original. Thus this film exists as something of a soft reboot. In interviews the directors also stated the origin story for Ghost Rider never made sense to them and they wished to change aspects of the character for this film. That includes removing the Penance Stare and making Ghost Rider have an uncontrollable desire to feed on the wrong people have committed, even things like little white lies could set him off.
Question: Where did Mary Lee live before moving into Ross' old apartment?
Answer: Rosery Road.
Question: Why does the train where the action takes place have the locomotive as the last car? When two trains pass each other at one moment, the others locomotive is at the beginning.
Chosen answer: Trains that shuttle back and forth on shorter stretches don't usually turn around at the terminus. They simply go "backwards". So, in one direction the loco is in the front, on the way back it's at the end of the train.
Question: If Charles was shot in this movie, becoming paralyzed, how did he get the ability to walk by the time the beginning of X-Men: The Last Stand came around?
Answer: It is shown in X-Men: Days of Future Past that Hank made a serum that can help him walk.
Chosen answer: The short answer is events in this film negate what happened in X-Men 3 as well as Origins: Wolverine or one could say this film essentially became a reboot. Since no real answer seems to be given, and since the X-Men 3 film makers didn't know Charles would later be shown to become paralyzed prior to visiting Jean, they had no need to explain why he's walking. One can only speculate on the possible ways Charles walks in these 2 previous movies (and this isn't taking into account the timeline shift from X-Men Days of Future Past). We do know from DOFP that Hank/Beast created a serum for Charles that allowed him to walk, albeit without his powers. Hank could have kept working on this serum which would allow Charles to walk and still maintain some of his powers. Then at some point Charles stopped taking the serum, confining him to the wheelchair once again. Either because they ran out of the serum or because Charles came to the realization he needs to accept what happened and not hide it, especially if he's teaching children to accept who they are. Charles also has the power of "astral projection" and the power to appear in the minds of others, so Charles could simply not be there at Jean's house, but is back home, in his wheelchair.
Question: Colonel Dolarhyde mentions about having participated in the Battle of Antietam and losing men in the Cornfield. Did he fight for the Union or the Confederacy?
Question: We see in the movie that the time is like money but where is the "time" generated?
Chosen answer: When they turn 25, their built-in clock starts counting down from 1 year. Since time is the currency, they must then work and contribute to the economy, in order to earn time and survive. The government gives that one year of time to each person, as both a population control measure (if they don't work and earn, they'll die) and an economic incentive.
Question: Why do we never see babydoll dance?
Chosen answer: Because what happens inside her mind when she is dancing is more important than the dance itself. Besides which, the whole movie takes place within her mind before the lobotomy, and most times when you dream, you don't see yourself as others see you.
Answer: I personally submitted this as a revealing mistake. There is no official statement from Wes Craven or anyone else involved in the making of the movie about it being deliberate. So in my eyes, it's a mistake.
THGhost