Question: Why didn't Lucius try to defend himself after getting stabbed? He just fell down and allowed himself to receive more stabbings. Sure, it was no doubt shock that set in, but human instinct would have been to try to at least push Noah off him and try to get away from him.
raywest
2nd Aug 2023
The Village (2004)
Answer: In real life, sure... 90% of people would fight back. But in the context of the movie, we are meant to assume that he collapsed due to being in shock/pain from being stabbed. Just to add a little extra note, I'm assuming the numerous questions that have been posted for this film and "Signs" over the past few weeks are coming from the same person. You really do have to remember that these are stylised movies from a director with a very quirky style. Shyamalan's films (both his good films and his bad films) often have a sort-of unique sense of logic to them, and almost follow fable-like rules at times. Trying to force too much real-world logic into them or wanting too many answers to kind of undermines their point. It'd be like trying to apply real-world logic to Grimm's fairy tales or a Wes Anderson film.
3rd Jul 2023
My Girl (1991)
Question: Is it ever said how Vada's mother died? Harry mentions she met Vada and lived a couple of days after her birth.
Answer: She still died due to complications from childbirth, despite living another couple of days. Hence why Vada believes that she "killed" her mother. Jane Seymour, the third wife of Henry VIII, also died from complications, but she lived for two weeks after.
11th Oct 2021
Body Heat (1981)
Question: Matty introduces her friend as Mary Ann, but in the year book, the friend is actually Matty Tyler, and she is actually Mary Ann. Were both girls in on the scam? (00:31:22)
Answer: I noticed the problem of the introduction, also. It seemed like a major plot hole to me. There wasn't any material in the movie to support blackmail, etc by the real Matty. I hadn't thought of her possibly being in on the scam. If not, why wouldn't the real Matty have immediately blanched when hearing herself be introduced with the wrong name? So far, I agree with the OP's suggestion.
The real Maddy was at the house when Ned arrived. Presumably, she had already discovered what "Fake Maddy" was up to. It looked like Fake Maddy (Turner) gave the real Maddy a check, presumably a payoff to keep quiet. The real Maddy may or may not have known exactly what Fake Maddy was planning, but went along with being introduced as "Mary Ann." Also, the movie deliberately leaves details vague because it is a big plot twist at the end when Ned, and the audience, learns that Fake Maddy is really Mary Ann.
Answer: It appears that the real Matty Tyler was not initially in on the plan. It's confusing, and there're many plot holes, but it seems the fake "Matty" (Kathleen Turner) intended for the real Matty to eventually discover that her identity was being used (by Turner). The real Matty was then apparently blackmailing fake Matty to keep quiet. It appears that fake Matty intended to lure and then murder the real Matty, framing Ned Racine for her murder, as well as Edmund's. The real Matty's body was identified as being Edmond's wife through her dental records. Fake Matty probably intended for Ned to be killed in the explosion.
2nd Sep 2005
Roseanne (1988)
Lovers Lanes - S1-E6
Continuity mistake: Dan tells Crystal that his shoe size is 11. A few months later during episode 16, "Mall Story", Dan tells a shoe salesman he takes a size 13.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Some people wear different sizes depending on the type of shoe. Not necessarily a mistake.
19th May 2023
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: Hermione was the one who said that when a werewolf transforms he'd kill his best friend if he saw him, so why did she think she could talk to Lupin after he transformed?
Answer: Hermione was quoting what she knew from reading in text books. Now she was in a precarious real-life situation and she's going to try anything to survive. At first, Lupin (as a werewolf) seems passive and non-dangerous, prompting her to see if she can communicate with him. She quickly realises she's wrong.
I wonder why Lupin can't recognize Hermione while in his werewolf form, but he used to spend time with James, Peter, and Sirius, in their Animagus forms? So he was capable of recognizing friends.
All 3 friends of Remus managed to calm down werewolf Lupin as animagi after a while. But only Sirius wasn't enough apparently, plus it had been decades since they did that.
Totally agree with Lionhead, but would emphasize that Lupin had no control whatsoever over his mind, did not know who he was, nor did he recognize anyone when he transformed into a werewolf. He simply related to James, Sirius, and Pettigrew in their Animagus forms as being other animals who could moderate his behaviour and kept him far away from humans.
4th Nov 2019
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: This question might be more for the book, but Mad Eye said they would have to transport in ways the trace can't detect. But the trace would only detect magic used near an underage person. Harry is the only one who is underage. So they could have used a portkey. I understand that they need to cast a spell to make a portkey but they could have cast the spell before they were near Harry and then transported to the burrow. Or have I made a mistake?
Answer: The trace detects when an underaged wizard casts a magic spell whenever they are away from Hogwarts. It doesn't detect adult wizards using magic near a minor. If a portkey was used to transport Harry, it could have been detected when he touched it because he would be using magic. The safest and least detectable way to move him from point A to B, was to fly him there.
Answer: Two things. 1. You are not allowed to create an unauthorized portkey. The ministry must be aware of it. I think the incantation (portus) is traced. 2. Using a portkey is magical use, so the moment Harry touches it, the ministry would be alerted and possibly know where the portkey transported to.
Then how did Dumbledore get away with it in Order of the Phoenix when he made a portkey to get the children to Grimmauld Place?
Well he is an extremely powerful wizard and the headmaster of Hogwarts. I think he made it at Hogwarts yes? He could have had a trick up his sleeve to do it. Might be a bit more tricky for Mad-Eye and the rest whilst the Ministry is under control of deatheaters. Just too risky.
Also, using magic near an underage wizard isn't traced. Just when it is used by an underage wizard.
No, the trace is meant to detect magic used near an underaged wizard.
The wiki specifically says it's a trace of magic in the vicinity of an underage wizard, not the underage wizard him/herself. It's mentioned working like that by Alastair Moody in the books too.
When Harry used magic to repel the dementors that attacked him and Dudley in Order of the Phoenix, the Ministry of Magic instantly detected that he cast a patronus spell. He was immediately "charged" for using underage magic. What would happen when a young wizard was at home for the summer and holidays and is around adult wizards using magic all the time? The trace would be going off continually for every underaged magic person. It was mentioned in the books that if an underaged wizard did use magic at home, it could be confused with the adults who were casting spells.
Harry once got a warning from the "improper use of magic office" for casting a hover charm, even though it was Dobby who did it. I don't know where you get your information from, but it is wrong. The trace can only detect magic has been used, not who used it. This is explained by Alastair Moody in Deathly Hallows Chapter 4.
26th Mar 2023
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: How come Ron needed a walking stick when he was out of the hospital wing at the end if Madam Pomfrey can mend bones in a heartbeat?
Answer: Madam Pomfrey may be able to mend bones, but that doesn't mean there isn't some residual healing and treatment needed for a full recovery. The fact that there is a school infirmary and also St. Mungo's Hospital shows that witches and wizards are not always instantly healed. From a filmmaking perspective, Ron using a cane reminds the audience his injuries were serious, so it's partly for dramatic effect.
26th Mar 2023
Full House (1987)
Question: Was Sally Struthers ever on this show? In a South Park episode, Cartman says she is "a fat chick who was on Full House." It's not listed on her IMDb page.
Answer: You remembered that episode incorrectly. Stan asks the guys who Sally Struthers is, as they watch her in a TV commercial. Kyle tells him "Sally Struthers, dude. She used to be on Full House." I think it's a joke about her no longer being successful and popular - the kids are totally unfamiliar with her work.
21st Mar 2023
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Question: The fang of the basilisk has been shown in the other movies to be able to destroy a horcrux. Since Harry was a horcrux himself, when the basilisk bit him, why didn't it kill him or at the least destroy the piece of Voldemort's soul that was inside of him?
Answer: Because he is alive and the piece of Voldemort inside him is too. He had to die to kill the horcrux inside him, but Fawkes the phoenix healed him before that could happen.
18th Mar 2023
Night Court (1984)
Question: In nearly every episode there are two bailiffs standing in the back of the courtroom, a blonde white guy and a black man with glasses. They also appear hanging out in the cafeteria, walking in the halls, etc. However, I don't think they ever had a single line during the entire series run, even in episodes that prominently featured the building's entire bailiff staff. Any reason they made an effort to keep these two extras for the entire run, but never had them say anything?
Answer: Most likely, they were stand-ins for members of the main cast. When lighting sets, rather than have the main actors stand around while they adjust the lights, they will get someone with similar physical characteristics to fill in. Since they are already on the set and have nothing to do during the actual shooting, it is more convenient, and probably cheaper, to also use them as extras.
Answer: Most likely it was about money. Actors who have speaking parts, even if it's only one word, are paid more than "extras", who do not have any dialogue. As the two characters played no part in any of the plots, there was no reason to have them speak lines. Therefore, they were paid less money.
So why hire an extra to play a messenger or bailiff from another courtroom when that pair was already on the set and could have easily said the lines?
What lines? Your question specified that they never spoke any lines and you wanted to know why.
Lines that other extras playing bailiffs said.
If an actor speaks any dialogue, they are billed as "co-stars" and paid at a higher rate than "extras" (also known as Background Actors), who are uncredited. The two you mentioned were regulars who were merely silent background characters used to "dress the set", making the courthouse look more realistically populated. Extras often have no acting ability and are unsuitable for speaking lines. Some people work exclusively as extras in various TV shows and movies and do not actually act or have dialogue.
16th Mar 2023
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: Near the end of the movie, George and Lorraine say that if it hadn't been for Biff, they never would have fallen in love. Shouldn't they really be thanking "Calvin 'Marty' Kline" for getting them together?
Answer: I agree with you, but the idea is that, if George hadn't rescued Lorraine from Biff in the parking lot, they wouldn't have fallen in love. It's dark as hell to wax nostalgic about an attempted r*pe, but there you go.
Totally agree with your answer. Would add that Lorraine already knew who George was but was unimpressed and had mostly written him off as a goofy nerd. It was George saving her from Biff that totally changed Lorraine's perception. Otherwise, Marty's attempt to push them together probably would have failed.
17th Feb 2023
Excalibur (1981)
Question: At the very end, Arthur's body is being carried away on a barge, with three women standing above him. Are those three women the fates?
Answer: They were the Goddesses of Avalon. A group of women who each have a specific magical power. They were the makers of Excalibur, healed King Arthur's wounds from his first battle and took him to his final resting place, readying him for the day he would be needed again.
Most Arthurian myths attribute elves as making "Excalibur", and also "Clarent," King Arthur's other magical sword.
Answer: Or possibly they were attendants of Arthur, who would set the ship on fire, then have the option to die with their king, or to try to swim to shore. The Vikings did stuff like that. Why not imagine that the Brits did too?
17th Feb 2023
Die Hard (1988)
Question: When Hans is interrogating Takagi, why would he remove a silencer to fire the weapon indoors without hearing protection? Wouldn't it be more menacing to put a silencer on in that situation?
Answer: I think he's just subtly showing Takagi that he's in control of the situation - there's no need to hide behind a silencer, which they were using earlier. They've taken over and can do whatever they want, including loudly executing people. It's a very subtle power-play.
Answer: They used guns with silencers to access the building and take control swiftly and quietly. Now that they no longer need to do that he takes off the silencer. A silencer affects the gun's accuracy. It is also highly likely he wanted the people in the other room to hear the shot.
13th Jan 2023
Timecop (1994)
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.
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.
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.
4th Jan 2023
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: How was Umbridge able to cast a patronus?
Answer: She casts it like any other witch or wizard by using her wand and saying "Expecto Patronum". It is considered advanced magic, but most magical people can learn how to do this. When Harry (disguised as Runcorn) entered her courtroom, she had already cast her cat patronus to keep the Dementors at a distance.
Casting a patronus requires a very happy memory, though. And considering that she seems to be very angry and never felt that she was given enough power, she must have never had a happy memory.
"Must" is total conjecture. Perfectly possible for an angry resentful person to have one happy memory to call on.
Villains still have personalities. Depending on what specifically makes Umbridge happy, she could easily have a lot of happy memories.
Umbridge seemed quite happy while torturing Harry with the punishment pen, when she was ejecting Trelawney from Hogwarts, when she ousted Dumbledore as Headmaster, happy in her devotion to Voldemort, and so on. Happiness is an individual thing. Her sense of happiness was quite perverse.
Only those who are pure of heart are capable of producing a Patronus. Those who aren't would be devoured by maggots that shoot out of the caster's wand. Umbridge wasn't pure of heart because of all of the horrible things she did, so shouldn't she have been eaten by maggots?
18th May 2022
Doctor Strange (2016)
Question: When Strange is surgically removing the bullet from the patient's brain, why did he ask the one doctor to cover his wristwatch?
Answer: I took it to mean Dr. Strange could hear the watch ticking, and he wanted complete silence.
29th Mar 2015
Poltergeist (1982)
Question: What exactly did the ghosts want with Carol Anne?
Answer: They were partly attracted to Carol Anne because she she was born in her house.
4th Sep 2022
Taken (2008)
Question: How did the bad guys manage to sneak Kim and Amanda out of the apartment without being noticed?
Answer: In addition to the other answer, it's likely that, since they always bring girls to the same apartment for the kidnappings, they have a deal with the owners of the place to look the other way and provide them an escape route free from observers.
5th Oct 2022
Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)
Question: Why didn't Dumbledore apprehend Grindelwald at the end? He saw the blood pact was broken, and he had loads of backup, instead he just walks off and lets him escape.
Answer: Dumbledore, as a Hogwarts professor, did not have any legal authority to apprehend Grindelwald or anyone else. That was up to the magical authorities. Also, this was meant to be a four-part (and possibly five-part) movie series that continued the story leading up to Dumbledore and Grindelwald's final duel. The third movie underperformed financially, so the further sequels were cancelled, leaving the storyline incomplete.
But in the Crimes of Grindelwald, Travers - Head of Magical Law Enforcement for the Ministry personally asks Dumbledore to fight Grindelwald. Then immediately after in the film loads of people attack Grindelwald including Kama who doesn't work for any magical authority?
25th Sep 2022
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Question: Why did Lily never accept Snape's apology for calling her a mudblood? He never meant it as it was said in the heat of the moment.
Answer: I think it was Hermione who said "it's the worst thing you can say. It means dirty blood" Lily is deeply hurt by Snape saying it. It's similar to a modern day argument. Some things just can't be taken aback.
Answer: Remember how enraged Ron got when someone called Hermione that? I get the impression 'mudblood' is the wizarding equivalent of the N word, and there are just some things you can't take back.
This is a good answer. It also should be noted Snape was already on thin ice with Lily as he was into dark arts, showed signs of intent to become a death eater, not to mention according to Lily he had been calling others of her birth the same name. This was the straw that broke the camel's back for her.
Answer: Rather than "heat of the moment", it was more like "the straw that broke the camel's back." Snape was friends with other pure-blood supremacists, who would later become Death Eaters. They bullied Muggle-borns. In the book, she asks him: "But you call everyone of my birth 'Mudblood', Severus. Why should I be any different?" Essentially, Snape had chosen his supremacist friends over her. He refused to stop joining in their behavior.
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: Everyone reacts differently to physical trauma and stress. Lucius appears to be in a physical state of shock, as both arms are shaking, he is unable to move, and seemingly does not comprehend what just happened to him, never assuming that Noah would do something like this. That is when Lucius falls to the floor. It's not unusual for someone experiencing or witnessing something traumatic to become frozen in disbelief as they attempt to process what just happened.
raywest ★