raywest

12th Jul 2010

Sex and the City (1998)

Pick-a-little, talk-a-little - S6-E4

Corrected entry: After Miranda and Paul have a successful dinner date, he abruptly ends the night and tells her he has to get home. Miranda finally gets Paul to admit the truth, and he informs her that he has diarrhea and goes running off in a hurry along the sidewalk towards home. But if Paul was in that much gastrointestinal distress that he has to end a date and rush home, why wouldn't he just go back inside the restaurant and use their bathroom? They are standing right outside the restaurant, and it would have been much faster and more convenient than having to wait until he got home. (00:19:25)

Correction: Paul was obviously embarrassed by having to answer "nature's call," no matter how urgent. It was an awkward situation, and this being their first date, he likely did not want Miranda to know about his sudden need for a bathroom. Considering his predicament, he may have wanted to avoid using the restaurant's facilities under those circumstances.

This makes no sense. If the need was that bad, it's more important to find a nearbye restroom than worry about how your 'date' feels. There is no shame, guilt, or embarrassment in having to use a bathroom on a date. Many people do, and mention it out loud. It is irrational to risk extreme discomfort having to wait an extended period of time in those circumstances, rather than just go back inside the restaurant. He could have waited until his date left to do so, if necessary. But it's not a big deal to just go back inside.

It was obviously a big deal for Paul. I have a friend whose son-in-law will not use a public restroom under any circumstances. Some people have what's called a "bashful kidney" and can only relieve themselves at home. Apparently, Paul is an extreme case.

27th Feb 2015

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Question: Why does Dumbledore purposely hit Ron's injured leg?

Answer: This didn't happen in the book. It appears to be done purely for comic effect in the movie, showing Dumbledore's eccentric and quirky nature. He's seemingly oblivious to what he's doing and how it affects Ron.

Answer: Ron had previously bragged to Hermione about how bad his leg was injured, and had lied and said his leg might be chopped off. When Dumbledore later hits Ron's leg, he is saying that a child's voice no matter how honest and true. He is giving Ron a little payback for exaggerating.

Highly unlikely Dumbledore knew what Ron told Hermione at the Whomping Willow. Ron's leg was seriously hurt, so he wasn't "bragging" about it, nor did he lie. Ron, who is a bit of a hypochondriac, was simply embellishing to be more dramatic and to gain Hermione's sympathy. Hardly anything Dumbledore would consider worth giving him "payback" by inflicting pain.

2nd Sep 2022

Passengers (2016)

Question: Laurence Fishburne is obviously a person who would be familiar with the workings of the entire spacecraft. Wouldn't he have known that the Autodoc had the capability of putting a person back into hibernation? Why wouldn't he have informed Aurora of this after being told that she was purposely awakened?

Answer: I suspect he was too busy with fixing the ship and his own health.

He's a technician, not a medical person, and likely had no idea if the autodoc could safely keep someone in suspended animation for long periods. It is also possible he may not have known it even had this particular function.

You can't call a service rep if equipment on a spacecraft, billions of miles from Earth, has a problem. An onboard technician would have to be highly trained on every system on the ship. He wouldn't necessarily have medical training, but would have to have been trained on all the systems on something as important as the Autodoc. It was the only one on board.

It may be the only Autodoc, but there would be many highly-trained technicians on board to tend to the ship, each specialized to work in particular areas on certain types of equipment.

31st Jul 2022

The Ropers (1979)

Question: In the pilot episode, Helen says to Stanley that he's now going to have to get a job (assuming to afford living in this pricey townhome), but throughout the entire two-season series, Stanley is shown never getting a job and sits around at home all the time. How did they never run out of money?

Answer: Assuming they made enough income from rentals fees, Helen may have wanted Stanley to find a job solely to get him out of the house and out of her hair. Many women dislike having their husbands home all the time, and, if they're retired, encourage them to find some work or activity outside of the house.

That's possible, though a bit doubtful since they lived in their old apartment building (the Three's Company one) for 14 years. That was 14 years of Stanley being at home without Helen wanting him to get a job "away from home."

She also isn't shown telling him to get a job for any reason after the pilot episode. Rather than continually nagging him, Helen apparently accepted that he wasn't going to get one. Also, it's a TV show. Writers continually change character dynamics, plot lines, running gags, etc. as the show progresses, which can create either deliberate or unintentional inconsistencies. It was probably something the writers saw no reason to pursue.

Answer: He owned the entire apartment complex in "Three's Company." Even the sales prices back in the 1970's were in the millions.

But if that's the case, why would Helen tell Stanley he'd have to get a job when they first moved to their new place? Even Stanley gave a worried look when he was questioned that. If they had all money, that scene would not have taken place and Helen never would have brought that up.

1st Aug 2022

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Question: Why did Diana destroy the mall's security cameras, and why did she want the little girl to stay quiet?

Answer: At this point in time, her gig as a superhero is not public knowledge, and she wants it to stay that way.

How would that accomplish anything considering there were many people in the mall who saw what happened?

It really wouldn't, but then again, the writers didn't put much thought into this movie.

As the other answer indicated, Diana/Wonder Woman wasn't yet known publicly as a super-hero. A video recording is different from eye-witness accounts of what people actually saw or believe they saw. Memories are faulty, they fade, and everyone sees and remembers things differently. Regarding the child, I interpreted it as Diana just motioning in a friendly way for the rather precocious girl to stay put, behave, and quietly wait for her mother.

In my opinion, it wouldn't, and it's just another example of the shoddy writing in this film.

wizard_of_gore ★

Answer: This was long before the age of superheroes, when everything was normal and meta-humans were just theories in a lab. It was her appearances which stated it all. Remember the tagline, "The Dawn of Justice Begins with Her."

23rd Jun 2022

The Lovely Bones (2009)

Factual error: There is a poster of Shaun Cassidy hanging on Susie's bedroom door - not only was Sean Cassidy only 15 years old at the time, but he hadn't even had a hit single yet.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: If you're talking about the poster visible at the 16-minute mark, I'm pretty sure that is Shaun's half-brother David Cassidy who was at the height of his popularity in 1973.

It's definitely David Cassidy.

10th Jul 2022

The Lost Boys (1987)

Question: When Max is having dinner with Lucy and her family, why does his reflection show in the mirror if he's really a vampire?

Answer: Max says later that because he was "invited" to come into Lucy's house, then certain identifying vampire traits are nullified and their enemies are rendered powerless. That was why he had a reflection, could eat garlic, which is supposed to repel vampires, and wasn't "burned" by the holy water being thrown on him.

Ya, but Max wasn't invited by the man of the house. That would be the grandfather. Plot error, then?

When was it established that the "man of the house" had to invite them in?

It didn't need to be the "man of the house." When Max arrived for dinner, Michael opened the door. Max just referred to him as the man of the house in a leading way so he will be invited in, knowing it would protect him from being exposed as a vampire.

14th Jul 2022

Cast Away (2000)

Question: Why did Chuck stand up and then spend ages looking at the part of the toilet that had washed up?

Answer: By that time, Chuck had been on the island for four years and was becoming somewhat mentally unstable. When he first sees the toilet wall section washed up against the rocks, he approaches defensively, spear in hand, as if it's something dangerous. He seems to snap back to reality and gradually surmises it is not only benign, but potentially useful. His mind then begins working out he can adapt it as a sail to escape the island.

Answer: He couldn't believe it, of all the things to wash ashore it was a toilet. So far everything else he found could be used in a certain way, but a toilet. I didn't see the movie at the theaters but I bet the audiences were roaring with laughter.

I saw it in the theater and no-one laughed...it wasn't funny. Chuck is seeing the first man-made object he's seen in years, and he's stunned...and maybe he's getting the idea of using it as a sail.

It wasn't the actual toilet. It was just the partial wall section of the plastic enclosure for an outdoor portable toilet.

16th Jul 2018

The Lost Boys (1987)

Question: As a vampire, Max wasn't allowed in the house until Michael invited him. How were David and his friends allowed inside since they were never invited? Also, how was Star, even though she was only half-vampire able to get into the house? She asked for permission but Michael said no.

Answer: In the film, being invited in isn't a requirement to enter. It's simply a way for the vampire to render you powerless (i.e. the tests the boys performed on Max).

Answer: As stated Star was half vampire, she has some of their powers not all. Max said, "Once you invite a vampire into your home, it renders you powerless." Which is why the holy water and garlic worked. They were not invited, they crashed in.

Answer: It's not that they can't "get in." Its that once you invite them.it renders you "powerless" (according to Max). Lets not forget that David and his friends were all killed. Max was stronger and probably would have won if Grandpa didn't crash into the house and impale him. Basically they can enter anytime...but being invited in gives them an advantage.

Except they weren't invited in. Only Max was.

Answer: Obviously, they were all invited in, one after another.

Charles Austin Miller

Only Max was invited in. Nowhere in the movie does it show David and the others being invited. And again, how did Star get into the house when she wasn't invited either?

Star and the others didn't need an invitation to enter any house, and they do not lose their powers once inside. If someone invites a vampire in, then they give the vampire an additional advantage, i.e. holy water won't burn them, they are unaffected by garlic, a mirror shows their reflection, etc. It is the inviter who loses all power against a vampire.

22nd Jun 2022

Evita (1996)

Question: In her death scene Evita sings a final solo and she cries out one line. What does she say? It sounds like "So soon" but I can't get the line. I've listened to the recording of both the film and the Broadway versions.

Answer: Within the movie version, when she is lying in bed singing her final song (titled "Lament"), I think you're referring to the words "how they shone, but how soon the lights were gone" near the end of this song. Also, the following may be helpful to you. This movie is available to watch free on Tubi. The full lyrics to the movie version of "Lament" are available here. For the "Lament" lyrics from the 1979 Broadway version, see here.

Super Grover ★

Answer: YouTube captions are often autogenerated and have no relation to what's actually being said.

I realise they are autogenerated, which is why I said that it "may" help to work out what the line was. While imperfect, they certainly are relevant to what is said. I've used it myself to figure out parts of movie dialogue. Also, streaming sites showing this movie might have closed captioned dialogue that is not auto-generated and is more accurate.

Answer: This scene is on YouTube and has the closed-captions option. This may help you determine what the line was.

10th Jun 2022

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Question: I know that, after Richard Harris died, Ian McKellen was considered to play Dumbledore, but he refused. Why did he reject this role?

Answer: McKellen said he turned it down for two reasons: first, he had already played a famous wizard (Gandalf) and didn't want to do it again; and second, he didn't want to take over a role from Richard Harris after Harris had called him a "dreadful actor."

To clarify, Harris never said that McKellen was "dreadful." He was quoted in an article as describing McKellen as a, "technically brilliant, but passionless" actor. He was also including Kenneth Branagh and Derek Jacobi in that assessment and referred to them all as "nice actors" who were "careful." It was just his opinion about an acting style different from his own, which was more emotive.

18th Feb 2022

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

Question: I have always wondered why the entire senior bridge crew beam down to Khitomer at the end of the movie - (1) this crew is already senior - you would expect some junior crew members to come as support even in the series episodes, they always brought the "red shirts" to do at least some of the dirty work or act as security escorts; and (2) Who's left flying the ship?

Answer: The logical reason is that this is the final movie with the original cast. The plot is written so that they all have a heroic climatic moment, are shown to still share a strong united bond, and are all together before bidding Star Trek fans farewell. It was a fitting and satisfying ending to their long participation in the ST franchise. There would certainly be plenty of crew aboard the Enterprise to fly it.

They've uncovered an assassination conspiracy with one of their own senior officers is involved, and she enlisted the help of two jr. Crewman. The plan would be classified to bridge crew only in case there were more crew involved. As for the ship, if they're in standard orbit, the computers can maintain that with very few crew on the bridge.

Answer: To answer question #2: nobody! When we see the senior officers return to the bridge, it is completely deserted.

That doesn't mean there was no-one on the bridge while the senior crew were on the planet. They may just have exited the bridge prior to Kirk and the others stepping back on. Also, bridge control can be transferred to engineering and the ship flown from there while in orbit. I would emphasize again that the scene was written without other crew being seen solely to focus on the original cast members one final time. It's their moment, so a bit of artistic license was appropriate.

14th Oct 2021

A Quiet Place Part II (2020)

Revealing mistake: The "baby" looked quite "rubbery" at times and its limited movements (even motionless) and lack of sound are indicative of a "fake" baby (doll) most of the time. The baby was mostly kept covered in some kind of box and did not even cry when the mother was running with it (while in her arms or in the box). (00:14:35 - 00:20:30)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: This is not really a "revealing mistake." Fake babies are used in movies all the time. Due to the complexities of filmmaking, it is simply impractical and impossible to use real infants for most scenes. Child safety and labor laws strictly limits how long a baby can be on set. A fake baby may or may not look "rubbery" but that is what they had to work with.

Your correction is precisely what makes it a revealing mistake. Explaining why a mistake occurs doesn't invalidate the mistake. You could only argue that it doesn't look fake or a real baby was used, but since that's not the case, the mistake stands.

A "mistake" is an unplanned and/or unwanted circumstance. Obviously using a fake baby was an intentional decision. At best, this should be classified as a "Deliberate Mistake."

This very website defines "revealing" mistakes as: "Anything which gives away filming techniques, such as stunt wires being visible, or glass smashing before anyone goes through it." (And I could be wrong, but I believe the definition used to be even broader.) An obviously fake baby falls under that umbrella, and always has. You simply can't argue that it's not a revealing mistake by the rules of this site just because it was a deliberate choice by the filmmakers. Heck, even under your strict definition of mistake (which is very problematic, because it doesn't really account for plenty of things that 99.9% of people would commonly consider "movie mistakes"), it's still a mistake, since the filmmakers wanted people to think it's real, and we obviously don't - ergo an unplanned circumstance.

29th Apr 2022

Midnight Express (1978)

Question: When they start exploring the catacombs under the prison, where did they get a flashlight?

Answer: Exactly. How they got it, we don't know. Hence my question, to find out something I didn't know.

Answer: I don't recall that it was explained, but it was probably stolen from a guard at some point and later traded from another prisoner.

I could assume that, sure, but I was looking for a more precise explanation. The more likely explanation is that they needed a light and the writers hoped no-one would notice. Seems like they could have used some sort of burning torches instead.

There is no precise explanation because it's not revealed in the plot how they got it. What they "could" have used is fan speculation, which opens dozens of possibilities, none of which are substantiated or relevant. They obviously obtained the flashlight, so that is what they used. How they got it, we don't know.

28th Apr 2022

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)

Question: Has it ever been explained what would have happened if the Sorting Hat couldn't decide what students should be placed into what house?

Answer: If the Sorting Hat experienced a "Hatstall" where, after a certain amount of time passes, it was unable to decide where to place a student based on their being suited to more than one House, then the student's personal preference would be considered. There were a handful of "hatstalls" over the centuries, but the Sorting Hat eventually placed the students.

Where are you getting this?

From the Harry Potter "Wizarding World" web site. The supplemental material was written by J.K. Rowling and originally published on "Pottermore." According to Rowling, Minerva McGonagall was a Hatstall student. The Sorting Hat had difficulty placing her between either Gryffindor or Ravenclaw, finally settling on Gryffindor.

The term Hatstall was created by JK Rowling. It can be found here: https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/hatstall.

Super Grover ★

26th Mar 2022

Copland (1997)

Question: Harvey Keitel was supposed to have been a highly respected veteran officer with the NYPD with connections within the department and other agencies as stated in the movie. With all that power and connections, it puzzles me why his character is still a patrol officer working beat shifts as shown in the scene when he intentionally let Joey fall to his death on the roof. He shows up in uniform in a patrol car with his other crooked partner responding to the call.

Answer: Being a higher-up not only means more responsibility, but also closer scrutiny. As a low-level beat cop, it allows Donlan a lesser profile, greater mobility out on the street, to be at crime scenes without suspicion, and he can more easily and covertly interact with his criminal accomplices and contacts. Being tied to an office would be a hindrance; he can wield his corrupt power more effectively this way.

Answer: Yes that's correct but in actuality it's highly unlikely a veteran officer would stay in patrol their entire career, crooked cop or not, unless they work for a very small department and there are no opportunities to move up.

Yes, in the real world, it is indeed highly unlikely he would spend his entire career on patrol. For the purpose of the movie, it serves the plot to have the Donlan character written as a mobile beat cop for the reasons stated. It also allows for more action and sets up the final confrontation between Stallone and the crooked cops. Movies just do not reflect reality.

22nd Mar 2004

Die Hard (1988)

Question: Can someone please explain the scene where McClane and Hans are alone near the roof. Hans says his name is "Bill Clay" and the camera zooms in on a board with the name Clay on it. What is the significance of this? Does this give Hans away? And if so how?

Answer: No, this doesn't give Hans away - the zoom represents McClane checking the board out - getting proof that there is indeed a person in the building with that name (listed as W. Clay, for William). Hans has obviously done his homework, but McClane doesn't trust him anyway, hence the trick with the empty gun.

The zoom to the board occurs before McClane turns around to glance at it. Most likely Gruber was improvising here - he heeded a name, scanned the board quickly and picked one off it.

He doesn't turn - the name board is just behind Hans to his left, in John's direct eyeline.

Answer: John already knew what Hans looked like. He saw him through the vent on the top of the elevator (after sending Karl's brother down wearing the sweater) - He also saw Hans shoot Takagi (which is why he says "Just like you did with Takagi" after Hans says he's gonna count to three).

Answer: It ties in to the earlier scene when McClane first enters the lobby and has to look up his wife in the fancy directory. It seemed like a pointless scene, but it establishes that the ONLY people left in the building are on the 30th floor. Bill Clay works on the 29th floor, and so isn't actually in the building at all. Gruber doesn't know this, he just picked the name, and that is how McClane knew he was lying.

The people on the 30th floor were attending the party, regardless of what floor they worked on, so Clay could have been there. I agree with Tailkinker's answer about Hans having done his homework. It appears that Hans had noticed Clay's name on the board and improvised a cover. As the others indicated, McClane wasn't fooled, though I don't think McClane was positive it was Hans. He'd previously only caught glimpses of Hans while in the elevator and also when Takagi was shot, but he did not see his full-face or close-up. McClane likely recognized his voice, even with the American accent.

8th May 2006

The Great Escape (1963)

Character mistake: The scene in the outdoor Parisian cafe is incredibly daft. First, the cafe owners call James Coburn's bizarrely-accented Australian to the telephone to keep him out of the way as their accomplices assassinate three uniformed German officers seated in the cafe in a drive by shooting. They then toast the killings with cognac, and that is the mistake - not the shootings, not the luring away of Coburn - the mistake is that the cafe proprietors celebrate the assassination of the German officers in broad daylight, in the open, without even stopping to think that such an action would have them shot, because all of this is done in the direct view of passers-by in broad daylight. Do they think those three German officers were the only ones in Paris? How did they know Coburn wasn't an undercover Gestapo agent or a French collaborator? Don't they stop to consider that in an occupied city machine gun fire is going to draw some attention from the authorities, who might just wonder what a couple of bullet riddled corpses are doing lying about the place?

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Regarding the French cafe proprietors making a toast, if questioned, they could simply claim they were celebrating surviving the incident and/or needed a calming drink. Considering any ensuring panic and confusion after the shooting, pedestrians would hardly notice the waiters. Attention would be on the dead Germans. French citizens most likely wouldn't care or cooperate with the authorities. Being indifferent to German officers getting killed is not proof of involvement. Most French hardly be remorseful over their enemies' deaths. Antagonism toward the Germans was normal. It would be more suspicious if the proprietors showed concern. As far as helping James Coburn, it was pretty obvious he was neither French or German, and they took a chance to protect an innocent bystander. Also, it was to inject some subtle levity into the scene.

Rubbish. During the occupation Paris was crawling with collaborators and undercover German agents. The cafe owners are drinking champagne - not much of a nerve stiffener! - and they clink glasses in celebration of the shooting of the German officers. Their actions are beyond obvious to anyone that can see them. They simply would not take the risk and would act as if they were horrified to see their customers shot dead in their cafe.

Nope. Even if collaborators were "crawling" around, no-one would expect any French citizen to care about Nazis being killed. If questioned they can claim it was for the other reasons already stated (and they are not drinking champagne). It does not prove their involvement. Little would come of them being interrogated. As mentioned, this is a movie, and the scene injects subtle humor and is intended to show the audience that they are involved in the coordinated plan.

Again, rubbish. The Nazis occupying Paris arrested anyone suspected of belonging to or assisting the Resistance on the slightest pretext, and the cafe owners who were celebrating the deaths of three German officers would be in a Gestapo prison cell before the bodies of the dead Germans were cold. What they do after the Germans are shot is blatant, irresponsible, dangerous and completely unnecessary. They could have saved their celebrations for later when it was safe.

Once again, NOPE. Clinking glasses is not proof of possibly belonging to or aiding the Resistance. They also were not wildly celebrating. It was a quick, low-key action, and they looked both nervous and relieved. Also, I re-watched the scene on YouTube. When the car pulls up to shoot the Nazis, the street around them is completely empty. No witnesses anywhere. People are only seen far in the background. The phone call just before the shooting is a signal and indicates this was well-coordinated and timed. Secondly, the story needs to move quickly, and insignificant characters would not be seen toasting later. This also showed James Coburn (and us) that the waiters were potential allies.

You think the Nazis needed proof of someone's involvement in the Resistance? They arrested, tortured and shot innocent people on the unsubstantiated word of pro-German informers! No witnesses anywhere? What about Coburn? They didn't know who he was or where he was from. For all they know he could have been a Gestapo agent himself. The scene is absurd. Nobody is so stupid as to do what they did at the risk of dying horribly if caught doing it.

It should also be noted that the cafe owners duck behind their counter before the car carrying the gunmen shows up, and they get Coburn to do the same. They just provided incontrovertible evidence that they knew about the assassinations ahead of time.

Yes, they absolutely were part of it, and the hit was timed and planned in advance for the opportune moment. This was not a random act, and the phone call is the signal that sets the events in motion. When they made the toast, they knew the street was completely empty and obviously felt it was safe to do so. Also, if Coburn was a spy or collaborator, he would have warned the Nazis, not hidden behind the counter. THIS IS A MOVIE, NOT REAL LIFE.

15th Mar 2022

The Karate Kid (2010)

Question: Since this is a movie solely based on Kung Fu (and not karate), why wasn't this film titled "The Kung Fu Kid"? It seems it would also help separate confusion between this film and the 1984 Karate Kid film.

Answer: While there was discussion to name the film "The Kung Fu Kid", it was ultimately decided to keep the original, and more familiar, title since the film is considered a reboot. Not only is the story line the same, there are many elements from the original film seen in the reboot. And, had Ralph Macchio not turned it down, he would have had a cameo. It should be noted that the title in China is "The Kung Fu Dream" (功夫梦).

Answer: There was a comic book titled, "The Kung-Fu Kid," so there were copyright issues.

Titles, names, slogans, and short phrases cannot be copyrighted. In some instances, they can be trademarked.

The original answer does seem suspect without a source, but it should be noted that there was a DC Comics series before the original film called "The Karate Kid" and Columbia Pictures had to get special permission from DC Comics to use the name. All the films even acknowledges the name is used with consent. There definitely could have been a lawsuit if DC Comics didn't want to give permission.

Answer: Even though it's incorrect, "Karate Kid" is the catchier and familiar title, indicating it is a reboot of the popular original series, making it more marketable. It also uses an alliteration that rolls off the tongue easier. "Jurassic Park" is another example of a deliberate misnomer in a movie title. The dinosaurs depicted in that film were from the Late Cretaceous period, millions of years after the Jurassic. "Cretaceous Park" just didn't sound as good.

3rd Mar 2022

Somewhere In Time (1980)

Question: Before Old Arthur leaves the room, why did he get the feeling that him and Richard met before?

Answer: Because they had met before. When Richard went back in time to 1912, Arthur was a five-year-old boy. Old Arthur remembers, or at least recognizes, Richard from that time.

Except that Richard hadn't travelled into the past yet.

Like all time-travel fiction, if he will, then he already did. The portrait he saw in the gallery of Jane Seymour is another example: He brought the smile to her face and IIRC, she changed her pose upon seeing him.

Exactly right. Time-travel films rarely make sense plot-wise. They employ a "suspension of disbelief" where the audience just accepts the premise so the story can be told, regardless of whether or not everything makes sense. As I recall, Jane Seymour's "old character" told Richard to "come back to her," meaning she wanted him to go back in time to when she was young.

Time Travel movies and shows do this sort of thing often. This movie actually keeps to the premise of time travel pretty well.

Answer: He already did, when the elder Elise approached him and said, "Come back to me." When he visited her home and listened to the music box and replied. "That's my favorite song." He found his name in the old hotel register in the storage room. At the end of the movie, when he returned to the future, Elise was holding his pocket watch, which she returned to him when she was old. All that concludes he did time travel, he just hadn't done it yet.

Thanks. Time travel movies sure are confusing.

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.