Answered questions about specific movies, TV and more

This page is for questions relating to a specific title. If you have a more general question, please check out the general movie questions section. Click the button below a question to answer it or click "edit" to correct a spelling mistake. Ask your questions here, and hopefully someone will answer soon. Members get e-mailed when any of their questions are answered.

Question: In the beginning of the film, Truman talks about something looking into a mirror. Like, "I'm not going to make it", "You're going to have to go on without me", "You're going to the top of this Mountain, broken legs and all" and so on. What was he doing?

Bunch

Chosen answer: He is daydreaming out loud - acting out a little fantasy in his head. Truman leads a very ordinary, very humdrum, almost totally pre-programmed life. He attempts brief moments of escape, fantasizing about lost love, dreaming of a trip to Fiji, and engaging in small flights of fancy while staring at himself in the mirror. He has another such episode when he draws a space helmet with soap around his reflection, and imagines himself an astronaut.

Michael Albert

Show generally

Question: Just how does Walt intend to explain the presence of all that meth money, even posthumously? Just how does he think his heirs will react to that, how is he going to launder it? How does he think his wife and kids will explain it? If they knowingly inherit and use such money, they could face charges of accessory after the fact. Is this ever addressed in the show?

dizzyd

Chosen answer: I'm not sure how far you are into the show but he does eventually come up with a way to launder it (wont spoil it for you but rest assured, when he gets a lawyer the show gets much better!) and in the final season he also comes up with a way to give his children his money without the cops or the DA knowing it came from him.

The_Iceman Premium member

Question: Charles amply demonstrated that he could remotely control the mind of a Russian naval officer, causing him to act against orders. However, on the beach, when they are unable to contact the American and Soviet fleets by radio, why didn't Charles simply control the minds of the naval commanders and stop the naval attack?

Charles Austin Miller

Chosen answer: He was much closer to the Russian officer in comparison to when he was on the beach, and the Russian officer was just one man. Taking complete control of the hundreds of men on the ships required to fire all those guns would be beyond even Xavier.

Friso94

Question: When Ramses is getting ready to go after Moses, Nefretiri hands him the sword and says to come back with Moses' blood on it. Why would Nefretiri want Moses dead, since she had been in love with him for a long time?

Chosen answer: She was a woman scorned. Yes, she loved Moses, but Moses turned his life away from the royal life of Egypt (and Nefertiri's love) to be with his people, the Hebrews, and serve the will of God. These were far more important reasons to Moses than living a lush life as a prince of a people he was not connected to by blood or lineage.

Scott215

Answer: The final plague was the death of all first born male children. It included her son, but she refused to believe it. She believed Moses would would protect him from the curse. Even when he was dying in her arms, she said, my son will not die.

Question: In the very last shot of the film the Wonkavator flies up into the clouds and disappears but a few seconds later the clouds appear very thin and the Wonkavator is completely gone. Did the Elevator turn and fly back down or did it fly more up into the sky?

Luka Keats

Chosen answer: From the way the shot is filmed, we can presume the Wonkavator continues to fly further up into the sky until we can no longer see it. Once the machine disappears from our sight into some thicker clouds, the camera pans left slowly to show us more clouds, including some thinner ones. But the whole shot was created using special effects. I am fairly certain the intent of the filmmakers was to have us believe Charlie was flying off to an adventure above the clouds.

Question: Why was this movie rated G? It does contain some violence and a murder scene and some content that's inappropriate for children.

Luka Keats

Chosen answer: You are correct that "Oliver" does have some material that might be intense for young children - including a murder, some minor violence, issues of adoption, child abuse, kidnapping, and even some sexual content (but only by innuendo). Drinking alcohol is also involved, and some of the characters with whom we are meant to sympathize are, in fact, thieves. But intense content does not necessarily preclude a movie from obtaining a "G" rating. There have been several G-rated movies which have content, including killing, that could be frightening for children, including "Bambi," "The Lion King," "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," and "The Wizard of Oz," to name a few. In "Oliver," most of the violence is alluded to, and the murder of Nancy is committed out of sight (only Sykes' hand is visible, and Nancy's screams are heard), though it is frightening and realistic. Violence can be permitted in G-rated films, as long as it is "minimal." Sexual innuendo is permitted, in small doses, as long as lewd acts aren't shown. Intense content is also permitted. Drug use is not permitted, but I suppose the tavern scenes are cartoonish enough as to not warrant a more harsh rating. The bottom line is that ratings are determined by the MPAA - Motion Picture Association of America, and that association is given wide latitude and discretion. Apparently, the "mature" content of "Oliver!" was not viewed as rising to a level which the MPAA felt would warrant a more stringent rating.

Michael Albert

Question: What is the age difference between Victor and Logan?

Chosen answer: This is hard to definitively say. In the comics, Victor is never the half-brother of Logan. This movie is based on a 6-part comic book series called "Origin" (also known as Origin: The True Story of Wolverine). In it, Logan/Wolverine is revealed to be James Howlett. Dog Logan (yes, Dog as in the animal) is Thomas Logan's son (Thomas Logan being a groundskeeper for the Howletts). It is then revealed Thomas Logan is James Howlett's father as well. In the comics, Dog was born 1882. Wolverine's actual birth year is never definitive, but said to be between 1882-1885. However, Dog Logan is not Victor Creed/Sabertooth in the comics (as of yet). So the film turned Dog into Victor. So in this film, Victor is probably 1 or 2 years older than Logan. In the film, the actor who portrays young Victor is only a year older than the actor who portrays young Logan.

Bishop73

Question: What happened to Fifi, Roop and Charlie - they are not seen or mentioned for the rest of the film?

Luka Keats

Chosen answer: We don't know - Max was on leave after his wife and child were killed. He changed into his police uniform and stole the interceptor to revenge their deaths. He did not have to see his colleagues to do this, as he had access to the police garage.

Question: At the end of the movie, Deputy Mayor Bellwether is convicted because her confession was secretly recorded on Judy Hopps' recorder pen. Since such a confession was surreptitiously obtained, that would make it inadmissible in court as evidence, correct? And in the absence of corroborating evidence (which was all destroyed when the subway car blew up), wouldn't the deputy mayor's conviction be thrown out?

Chosen answer: One possibility: Zootopia's laws are different than ours. Another possibility: The police were able to get a written and signed confession from the deputy mayor that was admissible in court. Yet another possibility: Her lawyer agrees with you and was able to get her released after the closing credits. Another possibility is that there was enough evidence. There's Nick's and Judy's testimony, Nick had the Night Howler pellet still, and Duke Weaselton and Doug or the other rams could have testified to benefit themselves. Plus there's the phone call Bellweather made claiming Judy was attacked and a lot of the back-and-forth between she and Nick/Judy happened right before we see the police arrive so they might've heard something.

Question: Kirk and crew deliberately disclose crucial technological secrets, extend the life of a random stranger, deliver future technology to a primitive military power, abduct a cetacean biologist, and actually contribute to the extinction of a species during their brief stay in 20th Century San Francisco. Specifically: Scotty reveals the secret of Transparent Aluminum 150 years too early; McCoy arbitrarily uses 23rd Century medicine to cure a seriously ill 20th Century woman; and Kirk chooses to remove Gillian from the 20th Century. Perhaps most importantly, Chekov leaves behind a Starfleet Communicator and a Type 2 Phaser in the hands of the U.S. Navy (who would undoubtedly dissect the devices and try to exploit the technology a couple of centuries too soon). Beyond all that, Kirk and crew abduct two breeding humpback whales, one of which is pregnant, and that certainly contributes to humpback extinction in the 21st Century. Given what we think we know about disrupting linear time continuity (many instances are cited in Star Trek canon), how did Kirk and crew return to anything even resembling their own timeline after such blatant and deliberate interference in Earth history?

Charles Austin Miller

Chosen answer: This question has been answered a number of times by various individuals, all saying pretty much the same thing. The answers have been most satisfactory given the question revolves around a fictitious situation and the answer (s) need to be accepted as complete for this purpose. Any dispute or non-acceptance should be addressed in a Star Trek forum. Any ignoring of the Prime Directive was done to save the future of Earth, as the probe would have wiped out all life on Earth. Essentially, nothing that was done in the past resulted in major changes that would make Earth 300 years later appear any different, and no major futuristic technologies were revealed. The major one, Chekov's communicator and phaser being left behind did not result in anybody learning secrets. In the film, the phaser didn't function because of the radiation. It's presumed then the radiation permanently damaged the equipment so it appeared to be nothing but a toy or prop. However, in the novel "The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh", Roberta Lincoln was sent by Gary Seven to recover the items from Area 51 before any secrets were learned (and as stated before, additional corrections to Earth's timeline could have been done that aren't addressed in the film.) The subsequent loss of a suspicious "ruskie" would have hardly affected the era that was already in the midst of the Cold War. McCoy even questions that giving Dr. Nichols the formula for transparent aluminum could alter history to which Scotty replies what if Dr. Nichols is the one who invents it, to which McCoy agrees (in a later novel it is reveled that Scotty already knew Dr. Nichols invented transparent aluminum, so history was not changed.) The miraculous recovery of the old lady (growing a new kidney) was done by a pill so that any examination of her would not reveal the futuristic method involved. She would be a bewilderment to the medical community at best, and most likely misdiagnosis would be to blame. And just because she got a new kidney does not mean her life would have been extended, she could have died some other way in both timelines. And as stated before, Gillian simply wasn't vital to Earth's history. She could have contributed nothing of importance to society and died alone and childless. And a missing pair of breeding Humpbacks would hardly affect the extinction of their species, however in the future, they are already extinct, so little changes would occur. As for any questions about people seeing the Klingon ship in the past, who would believe them? People have long been claiming to see spaceships and aliens to little or no avail, so why would anyone believe a handful of people who said they saw aliens in a spaceship steal 2 whales? However, as with many time travel situations in films and novels, it's possible the events of the 23rd century as they appear in the beginning of the film are a result of Kirk and company's actions in the 20th century since the events already occurred even though Kirk and company had not yet done it themselves (this is where a discussion forum on the film would be advised, or a discussion forum on the theories of time travel).

Possibly the most convoluted and poorly-reasoned series of answers I've seen on this site. So far.

Charles Austin Miller

Question: What's the name of the club in the rave scene?

crisco121

Chosen answer: The name of the club is Cafe Opera.

Michael Albert

Question: In the back seat of De Winter's car, at lunch from the inquest, I can't get all of what Favell says: As he throws a chicken bone out of the car window, he says, "By the way, what do you do with old bones..." and then I lose it. At the end, he says, "however, for the time being."

kh1616

Chosen answer: From the screenplay of "Rebecca" which I found on-line, and verified by looking at two different versions, the entirety of the line is: "By the way, what do you do with old bones? Bury them, eh what? However, for the time being - you know, Max, I'm getting awfully fed up with my job as a motor-car salesman."

Michael Albert

Question: Was the child with the sack over his head, who attacked the mother and locked her in the bathroom, Simon or one of the children (ghosts)?

Chosen answer: It was Simon. He had found the mask in Thomas' little house and attacked her while wearing it because he was angry she had fought with him. We know it is him as the boy in the mask is wearing Simon's shoes, and later on when Simon is found he is wearing the mask.

Question: What was up with the coach's death? Was Freddy trying to rape him or something?

Chosen answer: I think the coach's death was a play on his character being at a S&M bar. People who frequent those places are usually into bondage and being dominated. Hence being tied up, and whipped with the towel. It also fits in with the homoerotic subtext throughout the movie.

Question: When Brutus and Nero capture Penny trying to run away, Brutus holds her by the straps on her dress. but when returning to the riverboat, Brutus holds Penny upside by her underwear. If it were possible, how would Brutus have managed to turn Penny upside down like that without releasing her and letting her run off again?

John Ohman

Chosen answer: It could be she got loose again when they were heading back and Brutus grabbed her again but this time by her underwear.

lionhead

Question: I have three questions about the Stabbington Brothers. 1) When the Stabbington Brothers find Flynn on the lake in the boat with Rapunzel, and then Flynn comes ashore to relinquish the tiara, the thieves have their own boat, which they eventually tie Flynn to and use to cast him off across the lake. Why don't the thieves just use their boat to try and catch Flynn and Rapunzel on the lake instead of waiting for them to come ashore? 2) After Gothel knocks the thieves unconscious, how did the Palace Guards find the Stabbington Brothers? 3) Seeing how the Stabbington Brothers shed tears of joy at Rapunzel and Flynn's wedding in "Tangled Ever After," what matter persuaded them to perceive Rapunzel and Flynn more favorably and made them decide to turn over as new leaves?

John Ohman

Chosen answer: 1. They had to lure Flynn away into a trap as to retrieve Rapunzel easier. 2. Probably a routine patrol. 3. Considering they are not imprisoned, and alive and well, Rapunzel probably pardoned them on the catch that they be good.

MasterOfAll

Question: When Dean and Annie are at the restaurant/bar, they go outside and with plastic wine type glasses Dean pours some champagne in their glasses. When Annie picks up her glass, the bottom comes off. She says, Oh I lost my bottom! Was that in the script or was it a blooper? I've always felt it was a blooper and if it was Annie covered it so well. Thanks.

Chosen answer: Goldie Hawn mentioned in an interview that it was a blooper. She explained that she and Kurt Russell are so comfortable with one another that it wasn't really like acting, and she reacted naturally.

Jason Hoffman

Question: Why was this movie released in the UK through Warner Bros (at least on DVD), and not Paramount? I'm getting the Paramount information from a corrected entry about how the Paramount logo changes into the South Park Mountain.

Heather Benton Premium member

Chosen answer: Viacom and Time Warner jointly owned Comedy Central, and Comedy Central owned the rights to South Park. Paramount is the parent company of Viacom and Warner Bros is the parent company of Time Warner. So essentially they agreed to split distribution, in what has been described as a "jump ball", with Paramount taking the US and WB taking the international markets.

Bishop73

Question: Why are the chairs stacked?

Chosen answer: The poltergeists wanted to let the Freeling family know (in a dramatic, yet harmless way) of their presence and abilities to not only move objects, but to arrange objects to signal the family they were dealing with an intelligent entity.

Scott215

Question: At the fashion show that's not in Paris, Miranda tells Herb, "no business tonight" then she is in his hotel room in Paris. Are they seeing each other?

Chosen answer: They were not seeing each romantically. At the fashion event, Miranda had made a vague reference to Herb about the deal she'd made with him to have Jacqueline take the creative director position that Nigel was supposed to have with James Holt's new company. Herb had quickly changed the subject, which was when Miranda made that comment. Herb had been planning to oust Miranda from Runway and replace her with Jacqueline. Miranda had basically strong-armed Herb into the other deal by threatening to take the majority of Runway's writers, designers, models, photographers, etc. with her if she was forced out as editor.

raywest Premium member

Join the mailing list

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.