Question: How does Stacy give Guy 5 cent change if his total is $1.10? Did he have a 15 cent piece?
Bishop73
11th May 2016
Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
Answer: Three quarters and four dimes would make it correct.
But you can see that there is a dollar bill in the transaction - check the " mistakes" on this forum for the discussion. Your theory would be correct, had the dollar bill not been shown.
His bill was $1.05 and he gave her $1.10 so his change was a nickel.
No, his bill is 1.10. Stacey even says " that'll be 1.10"
Answer: She's acknowledging how much the guy gives her, not how much the pizza cost. She says "1.10" and then gives him 5 cents back, because the pizza likely costs $1.05.
20th Aug 2021
Liar Liar (1997)
Question: Does Fletcher also have the ability to know everything? Just think about this dialogue: Fletcher : Your honor, would the court be willing to grant me a short bathroom break? Judge : Can't it wait? Fletcher : Yes it can. But I've heard that if you hold it you could damage the prostate gland, making it very difficult to get an erection, or even become aroused! Judge : Is that true? Fletcher : It has to be! That dialogue implies that he had never heard that fact, but he still knew it.
Answer: There's a lot of things people hear that aren't true (myths, old wives tales, etc), Fletcher only HEARD that it could damage the prostate, but it's not a real fact. Since Fletcher did hear the myth, he technically wasn't lying, even though he was wrong. While holding in your urine for extended periods of time can lead to some issues, like an infection, enlarging the prostate isn't one of them.
And, just to expand: Fletcher says it has to be true, but this is just due to his own imperfect understanding of what is happening to him. As the answer says, he says he HEARD it, which allows him to say it even if it's not a true fact. The important thing about the curse is HIS OWN perception of what he says. If he believes it himself, he can say it.
12th Aug 2021
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Doc seemed hell-bent on destroying the DeLorean. So why did he go to the future and get a hover conversion done on the train? Why didn't he just build the train, return to his own time and then destroy the train?
Answer: He didn't return to the Old West, both of them had a desire to go to the final frontier. Their favorite author is Jules Verne, who wrote "From Earth to the Moon."
Answer: Doc was happy living in the Old West but returned to the future to collect his dog, Einstein, and he didn't want Marty to worry about him. He probably also wanted to make sure that Marty had made it safely back to his own time, to properly say goodbye, and make sure the DeLorean was never used again. He never indicated he would destroy the train, only the DeLorean. The hover conversion on the train would have been done in the Old West, not in the future.
I doubt he was able to make the train hover in the old west, whilst he could easily go to the future with it and do it there, like he did with the DeLorean. He did say he has been to the future with it, so it's logical to assume that's where he upgraded it.
Doc never says he went further into the future with the train or did the hover conversion there. If he could build a time-traveling locomotive in the 1880s, then he could create a hovering one, as he had the knowledge. Marty asks if he's going back to the future, and Doc says no because he's already been there. That could be interpreted a number of ways. It's a sci-fi movie, and there is a lot of suspension of disbelief employed here.
While the movie isn't explicit about when or where the Time Train was built, other sources do indicate its hoverconversion was done in the future. While Doc could invent a machine that was capable of time travel (the mechanics of which aren't really discussed), he had to travel to the future to convert the DeLorean and couldn't even fix the DeLorean in the past.
What 'other sources' indicate Doc travelled to the future for the hover conversion? Any fan speculation is invalid. I also don't get the argument. While Doc was unable to fix the DeLorean when Marty was in the Old West, he could, and did, in later years, build the time-travel train in the past. He could not otherwise have gone anywhere into the future to do anything. Time-travelling without the hover ability would be extremely difficult as a locomotive would be noticeable and require taking off and landing on empty train tracks. Doc would have to hide the locomotive while converting it. He would also have to know before time-travelling that the railroad tracks he took off on still existed in the future, as he could possibly arrive smashing into what became an urban development. This should be considered as both a deliberate plot hole and a plot device using "suspension of disbelief" solely intended to give the series a spectacular finale.
The comics reveal that Doc Brown traveled to 2017 in a prototype time machine and purchased materials which he brought back with him to the 1890s to use on the Time Train.
11th Aug 2021
The Toy (1982)
Question: Why does Stanley believe writing a book is a cop-out?
Answer: Because writing isn't a real job with a regular paycheck. Jack hasn't paid his mortgage in 6 months, so he's not making a living as a writer. So when Jack replies he has a job as a writer, Stanley is saying Jack is using that idea as an excuse not to work a regular job.
6th Aug 2021
The Naked Gun (1988)
2nd Aug 2021
The Wrong Missy (2020)
2nd Aug 2021
Over The Top (1987)
Question: Why did Bull only lose once at the end? Wasn't it double elimination?
Answer: The announcer basically says during the final match that the winner here will win the tournament. Meaning it was double elimination up to the final match (or even the final four). I can't think of an example of a real life double elimination tournament with that structure. It feels made up for the movie to let Hawk lose once, but not have to do a 2nd finals match.
1st Aug 2021
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)
Question: What's the deal with the awful looking costumes in this movie? Were the costumes from the previous two no longer available?
Answer: Jim Henson's Creature Shop didn't work on the third entry, so they went with someone else.
Why would Jim Henson's Creature Shop have to specifically work on the film? There were already existing suits. Shouldn't the studio have owned the suits, or did Jim Henson's Creature Shop only provide them on a rental basis?
All Effects was the company that provided the suits for the 3rd film. They had similar technology as Jim Henson's Creature Shop but underbid Jim Henson's Creature Shop to get the job.
17th Apr 2021
Monk (2002)
Question: Is it ever stated (in-universe or otherwise) if Natalie has a second job, or how she can afford everything, including all her new cars (I've seen her in at least 5 new cars, including an Audi)? She's always complaining she's broke, even after it's revealed she's a Davenport. But she also claims she doesn't take money from them. Plus, she's always trying to get Monk to pay her and/or pay her the full amount she's owed.
Answer: Through the entire show, I don't recall her ever mentioning another job. The two explanations I had for being able to afford those cars, was there might have been a life insurance policy after her husbands death (or Mitch left her quite a bit after he died). The other may have been she had accepted some money from her family willingly or unwillingly asked for it. But in truth, I would imagine it was for product placement in the show. Most shows like Monk tend to keep the characters moderately wealthy or financially healthy, so they can insert products or items for the characters to use. Phones, food items, cars etc.
Answer: In one of the episodes it shows her going back home and that she came from money. Her parents are wealthy. Maybe that is the answer.
But in the show after it's revealed she comes from money, she states she doesn't take money from her parents, despite still visiting them.
16th Nov 2015
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)
Question: Does anybody know the name of the music when Kenshin kisses Mitsu? I know it's in several of the movies, but I can't find it.
Answer: It might just be incidental music, but it sounds more like a variation of "Yoshi's theme" (an original score for the film), which was meant to sound like traditional Japanese music.
26th Dec 2003
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)
Question: When Michelangelo is in the village and wakes up in the shed for the first time, there are some kids that run in front of the camera. As they move we hear a very distinct sound effect of them giggling. Like the Wilhelm, this giggle sound effect is played in tons of movies and even commercials. Any idea what it is called?
Answer: I don't belive it has a set name, other than giggle or laughter it is just a generic sound. Much like the Wilhelm, which I think fans named after hearing it in a lot of movies.
29th Jul 2021
Old (2021)
Question: How exactly did Kara get pregnant? She didn't have sex with any other character on the beach.
27th Jul 2021
Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)
Question: When Dr. Evil demands $100 billion in 1969, the President laughs it off and says that amount of money doesn't even exist. However, the U.S. budget in 1969 was $186 billion. Does the President just mean that much physical money doesn't exist? If so, how did the government pay for things back then? Did they just reallocate funds?
Answer: I think it was just exaggerated as a gag. But he was asking for a huge amount of money that probably couldn't get pooled together. He was asking for almost 10% of the U.S. GDP and more than 50% of the budget. So it would have been like asking for $1 trillion in 1999 (or over $2 trillion today).
10th Jul 2021
Black Widow (2021)
Question: At the end, General Ross' convoy is nearly to Natasha, intent on arresting her...then we cut to two weeks later, and she's about to embark on a prison breakout. Are we just meant to assume she escaped...somehow? Fought off everyone who was in those about 20 SUVs? Ran for it and somehow got away?
Chosen answer: It was done intentionally that way by the director to be left up to the viewer's imagination. Cate Shortland said "that was intentional, because we wanted to leave the question of how she would get away, rather than allow the audience to get exhausted by another fight." Of course, it's also possible that future films or TV shows will discuss/show her escape. Perhaps she negotiated her way out with information on the Red Dust.
I don't see why she didn't just leave with everyone else. There was no reason for her to stand there and wait. She could have flown off, as well. The convoy was cars, not planes.
Natasha activated her tracker which led Ross to her. The plan was to have Ross and his men arrest Dreykov, but basically things went sideways. Natasha stayed behind to hold Ross and his men off from pursuing the Widows. Presumably, had she left with them, Ross would still be able to track her and everyone would be in danger of being captured.
Until it is explained by one of those future shows, it really can be thought of as a plot hole. The interview, after the quoted bit, goes like this; "We wanted to leave you guys on a high with the question of how did she use her ingenuity? Because she did. And it was probably, I would say, she bargained her way out of that situation. But I don't know." So...the director says she does not know how the hell did she -really - escape that situation, just that she must have done something clever. Hilarious.
Leaving the how unanswered isn't a plot hole, even if writers or directors don't know the how. At best, it's an unexplained Deus ex machina. A plot hole is something that contradicts what's been established for the sake of the plot, but here, nothing was established.
I wouldn't say it's a DEM. Wikipedia; "Deus ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly and abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence."There is no occurrence here. Nothing that we (nor the director.) know of intervened between the two scenes.On the other hand,"Plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot." Natasha's situation is established and then ignored.
Which is why I said it was "unknown." An unknown occurrence happened that resolved the situation that wasn't illogical. However, I wouldn't correct you if you submitted a plot hole mistake, but others might since something not being explained isn't a plot hole.
Yes, sorry, I was splitting hairs as usual; I don't think a DEM can be "unexplained" in the sense of "unknown" because its whole point is that it is the narrative device that gives the story its twist; as absurd as it is (like a literal God appearing out of nowhere fixing things), it must be "something." Here there's nothing; we only have a statement of the director, movie-wise it's not even particularly implied that the resolution was peaceful, since Nat simply says she'll hold them off.
20th Jul 2021
Hot Shots Part Deux (1993)
Question: What is the symbol on Saddam Hussein's pajamas?
Chosen answer: It appears to be his initials "SH" in the style of the New York Yankees "NY" logo. He's also wearing pinstriped pajamas that look like the Yankees uniform.
19th Jul 2021
Stepmom (1998)
19th Jul 2021
Lethal Weapon (1987)
Question: Who's the actor that played the jumper...? IMDB doesn't say... I thought I heard once that it's Mel Gibson's brother? He looks like the character "Johnny" in Mad Max.
Answer: The jumper's name was Len McCleary. He was played by Michael Shaner and is credited for the role in the film (and on IMDB).
Answer: Also, "Johnny The Boy" from the first Mad Max film was played by Tim Burns, according to Wikipedia; not only is he a completely different actor, but he is also obviously not Mel Gibson's brother.
19th Jul 2021
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)
Question: There's probably an obvious answer here; but why does Miraz wait until his wife gives birth to his child before killing Caspian? If Miraz wanted to take the throne, he could have killed Caspian any time after Caspian's father died (I think he died but can't remember the movie that well) so that he would be the next successor.
Answer: Prior to the birth of Miraz's son, Miraz had no heir. So his nephew, Caspian, was heir to the throne after Miraz. With the birth of his son, he didn't want there to be any questions as to who would be heir.
18th Jul 2021
Black Widow (2021)
12th Jul 2021
Black Widow (2021)
Question: Was the post-credits sequence changed at all, given the film's delay? Without giving specifics away, this was intended to be the first appearance of a certain character, but due to changed release dates that character first appeared in one of the Marvel TV shows instead. Presumably the character featured would have had slightly more of an introduction in this film if they hadn't already been in the TV show?
Answer: I can't attest to if the end credit scene was altered, but I can say that it's been Marvel's M.O. to introduce new characters to foreshadow upcoming projects without really giving them much of an introduction. For example, Fury, Thanos, Captain Marvel, the Wasp. It seems this credit scene was meant to tease the audience for her upcoming appearance in the TV show rather than build on who they've already established her to be.
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: This could be considered a mistake. Some people say the pizza cost $1.05, and he gave her $1.10, with 5 cents back. But if you watch the register, she rings up $1.10 before he hands her the money and then it shows $0.05. It seems this part wasn't in the script, so was added as filler and some of the sequence is slightly off.
Bishop73