Question: How can their house still be standing in 2004 when it was destroyed in 1994? Even if they rebuilt it it wouldn't look s old, it would only be a few years old.
oldbaldyone
13th Jan 2023
Timecop (1994)
Answer: My understanding was the timeline had been reset in such a way that the explosion had never happened.
Except that the explosion did happen. When Max carries Melissa out of the house to prevent her death again, their house is exploding in the background. This is because McComb had placed a bomb in the house to ensure that the explosion would kill Max which of course had ultimately failed.
The explosion happened, but it was before Max returned to his own time in the future. Once he went back through the time portal, everything somehow reset itself to before the bomb being detonated. The previous events in the past were erased in favor of an alternate timeline. The movie does not attempt to give a logical explanation, and it makes no sense, as most time-travel stories never do, but a "suspension of disbelief" is employed here. We're supposed to accept that it happened. Max is the only character who knows what the previous timeline was like, but he now has no idea of current events (like his wife and son being alive) in his alternate life during the intervening time from when he was in the past and returns to the "new" present.
2nd Aug 2019
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: If they were after Kimble, why did they kill his wife? She wasn't in the way because he wasn't in the house.
Answer: Kimble was called at the last minute for an operation at the hospital unbeknownst to Sykes and Nichols. Even so, it was likely that they would kill his wife to tie up loose ends. Their plan was to kill Kimble, possibly his wife, and stage the crime as a robbery.
The only reasonable answer is that the wife found this guy's hiding spot, and that left him no choice but to act. Otherwise, he would have simply stayed in hiding until Richard came home and killed the both (while sleeping most likely, but by surprise certainly).
25th Feb 2019
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: Wouldn't Dr. Kimball lose his medical license for changing the boy's orders in the hospital and signing the form, forging someone else's identity?
Answer: He's a convicted murderer, he's already lost his license. If you mean after he's been exonerated, the other doctor admitted he saved the boy's life. I doubt the AMA would prosecute him for doing that.
Also, as he was wrongly convicted of murder, he was wrongly deprived of his medical license.
Assuming he gets exonerated for the murder charge (I'm not a lawyer but I assume, in the messed up US legal system, this still takes evidence even though the actual murderer is in custody), he would still technically be guilty of breaking out of prison and fleeing police. It would be very interesting to hear the end of the story - everyone assumes they just let him go but in reality, it wouldn't be that simple and again, even if you are wrongly convicted, it's against the law to escape prison.
26th Jan 2021
The Departed (2006)
Question: When Costigan finds out that Costello is an FBI informant, why doesn't Costigan speak privately with Costello and reveal to him (Costello) about being an undercover cop in order to get Costello to tell him (Costigan) who the moles are in the police department? Then he (Costigan) can inform Dignam and Queenan, so they can have the moles (Sullivan (and Barrigan)) arrested. If Costello is an FBI informant and Costigan is an undercover cop then they are on the same side, so theoretically they can trust each other.
Answer: Just because Costello is an FBI informant does not mean he is a nice guy. Costello would probably kill Costigan if he knew he was a cop. They are not on the same side at all. Costello also benefits greatly from having Sullivan as a police officer that is loyal to him, so he would never roll over on him.
They aren't FBI informants either. They are Boston State Trooper undercover agents.
29th Dec 2020
Frozen (2013)
Question: Does Marshmallow obey Elsa?
Answer: Since Elsa created Marshmallow, it's very likely since after creating him, he threw Anna and Kristoff out of the ice castle.
Elsa is extremely emotional at this point. While she can make sentient things with her powers, it doesn't seem like she is in direct control of them. Most likely she gave Marshmallow the idea to keep everyone away from her castle and that's it. Elsa would never purposely hurt Anna, therefore Marshmallow is acting on his own, albeit following the last orders Elsa gave. So yes, he obeys her but is not under her direct control.
9th Aug 2020
Titanic (1997)
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.
29th Jun 2020
Wall-E (2008)
Question: Why would an escape pod have a self destruct?
Answer: Been a while since I've seen this movie but to answer your question...an escape pod would have a self destruct to allow the person inside to end things if all hope is lost. For example if you have no food or water and are just flying through space with no rescue in site. You may just want to end it instead of suffer.
30th Mar 2017
Cast Away (2000)
Question: When Kelly shows Chuck the map on the dining room table she shows him where he was rescued by the ship and where "his island" was located. How was it determined exactly where the island was?
Answer: The dining room map scene conveys a more important message than the location of the island. Kelly had dedicated the entire dining room to charting all activity and information related to Chuck's possible location. Think about it. She has a husband. She has a family. Yet a main room in their house is dedicated to tracking Chuck. Then look at Chuck's expression when he comes to realise this fact. He is amazed and taken back a bit while Kelly acts like it's perfectly normal. Clearly Kelly is still in love with Chuck.
There is nothing in the room that implies that she had dedicated a room in their house to Chuck's disappearance for the entire time. More likely, once he disappeared, she did whatever she could to try and find him. After the search was called off and they had a funeral, she probably packed away these items, only taking them out when new information was learned. once he was found, she probably took it all out again, anticipating he would eventually go there, or she just wanted to label on the map where he was and figure out how close they were to finding him. Ultimately, I would think a husband that has a wife that is SO obsessed with finding her ex-boyfriend for multiple years, to the point of constantly needing the search materials on a table out and visible to all - he would be insane to put up with that. At first, sure...but no way he is putting up with it for that long, taking up the only dining room table they have.
Chosen answer: The island's location could be determined by compiling pieces of information, including the dates and locations of where the plane crashed into the ocean, when and where the cargo ship found Chuck, and how long he was adrift to and from the island. Chuck, an experienced sailor, was obsessed with tracking time. He knew when he left the island because he had created an analemma, a type of calendar that charts star movement throughout the year, seen on the cave wall. Wind factors, weather conditions, and ocean currents would also be on record for those times and locations, and, depending on how long Chuck drifted on open water, his course could later be calculated by computer modeling and the island's (or its approximate) coordinates determined.
Also, I am sure that he was either shown, by FedEx or the freighter, a map of where the ship found him on the raft. After living on the island for so long; mapping it and trying to find any way to escape, he probably would be able to easily identify the island, especially after being shown a map with tide charts.
17th Feb 2004
Minority Report (2002)
Question: OK, let's see: Lamar Burgess set Anderton up; he Hired Leo Crow and sent him to be killed in a hotel. But How did exactly Burgess plan the meeting of Anderton with Crow? Anderton arrived at the crime scene by a chain of events that began with the pre-vision of his destiny. It was clear that Lamar did not fake the pre-vision, because this became true just like it was predicted; besides, when Anderton was being chased, he arrived to crime scene by a coincidence; so what did Burguess have to do to make sure the existence of the pre-vision and this possible future? I don't see a simple solution.
Answer: Well, there isn't really a simple solution, but here goes. For a pre-vision to form, there have be two things present within the range of the precog ability (which appears to be limited to the Washington area - regardless of the stated plan to take the programme countrywide, there's never any indication that the precogs can sense beyond that range). Firstly, someone with the intent to kill. Secondly, there has to be a target for that intent within the range of the precogs. Anderton is present, and has the intent within him to kill the man who took his son, but has no target - the real kidnapper is presumably either dead or beyond the precog ability. Burgess, by bribing Crow to pretend to be that man, has provided a viable target for Anderton's intent within the range of the precog ability, thus triggering the prevision, and beginning the chain of events.
The above answers the question, but there do appear to be some time travel issues with this plot point in the movie. Burgess set things up for Crow to fake being the kidnapper and thus triggering Jon's desire to kill that person, everything starts by the pre-cogs seeing the future. If the pre-cogs did not exist or did not have the vision, Jon would have never known that Leo Crow existed and would have continued on without having killed anyone. This is unique within the movie, as the other murders would have been commited regardless of whether or not the pre-cogs saw it. In this case, the ONLY reason this murder occurred is because the pre-cogs saw it.
Thinking about this a little more, it could be conceivable that Burgess had planned a different option for Jon finding Crow. We just never saw that on screen, because the precogs changed everything to an alternative future timeline once they saw the original murder. Originally, Jon could have been triggered by Burgess himself, stating that they got a lead on his son's murder and pointing him to Crow.
No I think Burgess set it up so that Anderton would find Crow because of the precogs, not have a different plan set up before or else it could be possible Burgess himself would be visible in the prevision. He manipulated the system perfectly, he has done it before after all. He knows exactly how the precogs work so he is able to set it up so that it's untraceable. Except, except for the fact there is always a choice. Only then did it go wrong for him. This proves both true for Anderton and Burgess in the end.
11th Dec 2019
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)
Question: They show a large mountain range in the beginning scene. How far away did they drive to get that tree?
Answer: It's never stated in the film, but the assumption is it was a long trip. The kids' annoyed/bored attitude and the fact that Audry refers to them driving "all the way out here" indicate it was at least several hours.
Answer: I believe this movie is supposed to be similar to A Christmas Story, in that the events are being recounted by Clark at a later time. This would explain some of the more fantastical things that happen, such as the Christmas tree excursion events, the truck driver, driving under the truck, jumping off the snowbank, the blonde...etc. I remember someone saying that this justified why the kids seem to jump around in ages between films too...bad memory.
8th Mar 2016
Rambo: First Blood (1982)
Question: If Teasle was so desperate to kill Rambo, why did he tell the soldiers he wanted him alive?
Answer: Teasle is a "my way or the highway" type of guy, as evidenced by his actions and the people he has on his team (they are either very aggressive, or extremely passive and do whatever they are told). When Rambo escapes, he is hell bent on ensuring that justice is served (even though he fabricated the crimes basically), so much so that he gets abusive and obsessed with serving it. he knows the national guard guys are likely to shoot first and ask questions later, so he tells them that he wants him alive, so that he can ensure justice if served. He is basically akin to Batman - justice will be served at any costs, except for killing them in cold blood.
13th Jan 2010
Rambo: First Blood (1982)
Question: I was wondering, at the beginning when the cop is about to shave him, why does he freak out about the knife but can kill people with his own knife?
Chosen answer: Because it's a knife that someone else is holding and can use against him. It's common for people in dangerous professions to regard their weapons as tools. For example, police officers who commit suicide by handgun rarely use their service weapon, but rather a personal firearm.
Additionally, I believe it is made clear during that scene that Rambo had previously been tortured at some point, and one of the tools used was a knife. So the combination of being restrained and having someone approach with a knife caused him to basically have extreme PTSD and so he attempts to escape.
22nd Oct 2019
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: I know one of the reasons Anakin slaughtered the younglings at the Jedi Temple is because he knew it would add to his power, but is there any other reason why?
Answer: He was instructed to eliminate all Jedi. Since the younglings were force sensitive and training to become Jedi, they were eliminated as well.
22nd Oct 2019
Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)
Question: What exactly is Leo talking about with the processing of laundering money? Neither Riggs or Murtaugh get it and I don't either.
Answer: Leo is describing a money laundering scheme, with the intent of taking dirty drug money and making it legit. Money laundering is largely about confusing the source of the money, to make it look like it came from a legitimate source. Leo is saying that the dealer gives the money to a courier, who gives it to a guy to put it into a dummy company. The dummy company writes a check to the courier in the dealer's name. This puts about 5-6 steps in the chain of custody of the money already. The dealer takes out a loan using the check as collateral (let's say a $10000 loan with a $10000 check as collateral). The dealer never repays the loan, so the bank keeps the check (nobody loses because the amounts are equal). This puts even more steps in the chain of custody. If a law enforcement agency wanted to try and track the money back to the source, they would have to unwind all those steps, being able to prove each step occurred with evidence. Very hard to do.
28th Dec 2010
Minority Report (2002)
Question: There's a quote that I don't understand: "The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen." I immediately thought, "Yes, it does change the fact that it was going to happen." If Witwer hadn't put his hand there, it would have happened. However, he did, thus "changing the fact that it was going to happen," right? Isn't this the point of the whole movie: determinism is foolish and that different actions produce different consequences?
Answer: No, he didn't change the fact that it was going to happen. He prevented it from happening. But until he stopped it, it was going to happen. And no matter how many times you look back at that sequence, it was going to happen. Up until a point, it was going to happen. It was just prevented.
Answer: The statement involves the idea of arresting people who did not commit the crime yet but are going to. Until the precogs tell someone to change things, the idea is that it will happen. If Anderton had rolled the ball and the other guy was not watching, it was going to fall. The only way to change it would have been for Anderton to say something. Things will happen unless the future is changed. Ultimately the idea is proven sketchy at the end at best.
27th Aug 2019
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: On Mustafar, why did Anakin think he was on the light side aside from the Jedi if he helped Palpatine earlier but now planned to overthrow him?
Answer: He's confused and becoming corrupted by the dark side. The dark side is making him see everyone as his enemy, including Palpatine.
People who do bad things don't always consider themselves as evil. Hitler and Thanos are good examples...they are doing what they think is best for the world, even if those things are unfathomable and largely considered evil. Anakin thinks he is becoming more powerful and in doing so, can save Padme. In his arrogance and with nobody keeping his emotions in check, he has become arrogant and believes he is the most powerful force user ever. He thinks he can make the world a better place and that the things he has done are to that end. Overthrowing Palpatine is part of the Sith way and would be a logical step for his current mental state.
8th Jun 2005
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: During the film, Padme mentions that "the Queen" of Naboo must be asked to approve something, implying that she is no longer Queen herself. So given that her mother was no longer a Queen, and her original past had to be hidden anyway - why was Leia a Princess?
Chosen answer: This was because when Senator Bail Organa (Leia's adopted father) returns to Alderaan following the Clone Wars, he becomes the Viceroy and First Chairman of Alderaan, and his family thereby become the Royal Family of Alderaan. Incidentally, Padme finished her term(s) as Queen of Naboo sometime prior to Episode II and later becomes a senator of Naboo, which is the position she holds throughout Episode III as well. Since Leia was adopted by the Organas, however, this change in Padme's status (from Queen to non-Queen) became irrelevant as Leia took on the social titles of the Organas and was really no longer connected to her mother.
Also, the Queen of Naboo is not a family thing. Naboo elects its King and Queen, usually young women. Therefore, if the Queen had any children, they would not necessarily be given royal titles. Being the Queen of Naboo would be more like being President of the United States than the Queen of England.
15th Apr 2004
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Question: Near the end of the Super Brawl, when Neo is lying on the ground helpless. Why does Agent Smith appear to act frightened and worried after he has said "Everything that has a beginning, has an end, Neo." Is it because it will mean he too has an end? And what made him say it?
Answer: This is an echo of a line spoken to Neo by the Oracle earlier in the film. It's hard to say for certain, but I believe that given the disruption to the Matrix when Smith took over the Oracle's body, it's likely she somehow weakened him. She puts these words into Smith's head to spur Neo on - Smith is worried because he has realised what she's done.
The line was spoken to give the audience hope that Neo was coming back to win the fight. What the audience doesn't know is that Neo and the Oracle want to lose this fight, so that Smith can be destroyed. It serves as the start of a little rollercoaster of emotion, as Neo comes back, then loses, then destroys Smith. it also clarifies which Smith it is that Neo is fighting, and makes Smith not think things totally through (which helps) when he starts to copy himself into Neo (had he stopped to think for a second, he might wonder why Neo was just letting it happen).
5th Apr 2017
Suicide Squad (2016)
Question: In the prison scene where they laid out the weapons, why was Deadshot shooting the rifle at an angle when he was "showing off" to Flag and Waller?
Answer: Exactly as you said, to show off. He wants them to see he can fire just as accurately at an angle.
I am not a gun expert and attempts to search this to verify my point have failed. However, it seems to me that he rotates the rifle to use the secondary sight. While this may be showing off, I assumed this secondary sight was intended to be used for a different range of target, or made a specific type of target easier. When he rotates the gun, it seems he is switching targets. Research has shown that the gun does have 2 sights (DDM4 MK18).
The DDM4 MK18 Deadshot is using has a single red dot sight, nothing "secondary." A gun has only 1 sight, perhaps also a scope, but nothing on the side that requires the gun to be used at an angle. Firing a gun at an angle seriously reduces the accuracy. If there is something attached on the side it's either a flashlight or a laser.
If you re-watch the scene, there are very obvious iron sights that he is using that are accessible by tilting the gun sideways. Holding it normal gets you the scope, sideways gets you the iron sights. Not sure what the benefits would be but there are absolutely 2 types of sights on the gun he is using.
Answer: The benefits to having the back-up iron sights is if the battery in your red dot go out during a fire fight. There are several gun accessory manufacturers that make angled iron sights. The are used as a backup just in case. Yes he is showing off, and yes those sights exist.
20th Feb 2009
The Dark Knight (2008)
Question: Anna Ramirez tells Jim Gordon that the Joker card pinned to the fake Batman's body has three sets of DNA on it: Judge Surrillo's, Commissioner Loeb's and Harvey Dent's. So they go and make sure of their safety while ordering Wuertz to find Dent (who is incidentally working for the Joker). But while Dent is speaking to Rachael, Bruce knocks him unconscious and hides him in a broom cupboard. How did Bruce know that The Joker was targeting Dent? He had no contact with Jim Gordon as he was not in the Batsuit. Did he just randomly anticipate the Joker's threat on Dent?
Answer: Bruce was very likely keeping an eye on the security from the building and possibly the police scanners. The benefit he was hosting had all the high profile people attending from Gotham, including Harvey Dent. There was a good chance Joker would crash it, and even listening to police frequency for a few seconds would have given Batman enough notice that something was very wrong and that Harvey was in danger. Ultimately, they don't show how he knew, so there is no way to know for sure besides saying - he is Batman, the world's greatest detective.
Answer: They are at a fundraiser for Harvey Dent (who is by the way NOT working for the Joker at all!). It is not a long stretch to assume that when armed terrorists come storming into the fundraiser, that Dent will be a major target for them, if not the prime one. Bruce simply does not take the chance to wait and find out if it's a robbery or an assassination attempt, but gets Dent to safety at once.
I think he meant that Wertz was working for the Joker.
As someone else pointed out, you misunderstood the original question. The statement was that Wuertz was working for the joker. You also haven't explained why Bruce knew *anything* about an impending attack... He grabbed Sent before the bad guys entered the penthouse. I guess he must've gotten an alert from a security camera or something.
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: In one of the flashbacks, it is shown that the wife designed the house and had been thinking about it for a long time. I think the easiest answer to this is: the house was simply rebuilt the same as it was.
oldbaldyone