Answered questions about specific movies, TV shows and more

These are questions relating to specific titles. General questions for movies and TV shows are here. Members get e-mailed when any of their questions are answered.

Question: Given she leaves the state while on parole, possessing a firearm, holding her ex at gunpoint, how does Libby avoid prosecution for these offenses?

Rob245

Answer: Because there were exceptional and extenuating circumstances and, technically, Libby was never guilty of the crime she was convicted of and had to resort to extreme measures to prove her innocence. She may have had a gun, but it could never be proved that she held Nick at gunpoint, only that she shot him in self defense. Also, it's a movie, which often are unrealistic regarding details like that.

raywest

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.

oldbaldyone

Question: Is the Canyon of the Crescent Moon a real place, or was the shot of the canyon as seen from Donovan's binoculars just a place created for the film?

Phaneron

Chosen answer: The Canyon of the Crescent Moon is fictional, but based on the real entrance to the Treasury (Al Khazna). The Bab as-Sīq is the wide valley leading to the Sīq, the narrow gorge entry.

Bishop73

Question: Why did the ex husband kill his former mistress turned wife?

Rob245

Answer: Nick used Angie to help fake his death, frame Libby, and collect the insurance money which would have gone to their son, Matty. It's unclear if Nick married Angie, who became Matty's legal guardian, but he needed her to gain access to the money. He certainly didn't love her, and once he fully controlled the money, he eliminated her, as she was a liability who could have exposed him. I agree with the other answer that it also simplifies the plot by killing off a secondary character. It also shows how devious, ruthless, and sociopathic Nick is.

raywest

Answer: I don't think they explained it, but most likely for her insurance money which is the same reason Nick faked his death in the first place. But it's also possible her death was faked as well. Looking at it from the prospective of the writer, it seemed it was easier to kill her off or get rid of her somehow instead of her showing up at the end with Nick and there wouldn't be a way for Libby to kill her without facing jail time for it and it wouldn't make sense for Libby to just forgive her and let her go.

Bishop73

Angie's death wasn't faked. It was established and verified by the next-door-neighbor lady that she was killed in the house explosion while Nick and Maddy were conveniently away. Libby also researched old newspaper articles about the accident and the ensuing investigation. The articles also showed photos of the now-dead Angie.

raywest

Question: Given that the crime is murder why is she paroled after only six years?

Answer: She apparently was convicted in a jurisdiction that used indeterminate (not determinate) sentencing, allowed a life sentence to be "with the possibility of parole" and sentencing philosophy of "let the punishment fit the criminal (not the crime). " When there is no mandatory minimum number of years to be served in prison, a convicted murderer (of various°) could actually serve relatively few years in prison with the remainder of the sentence served outside of prison (such as in a halfway house or residential treatment center, or in her own home under electronic monitoring) provided the offender does not violate the conditions of release. An offender receiving a sentence of "life imprisonment", for example, could serve the first several years in prison and then be released to a halfway house to continue "serving time" outside of prison (with supervision). The years served "in the community" are still "time served" under the sentence - only the location of serving it has changed.

KeyZOid

Answer: To start, this film gets a lot wrong about the judicial system and law (including the whole idea that Libby can freely kill Nick because she's already been convicted of his murder). In the film, they just say she's charged with murder, but never what degree. In Washington State, 2nd degree murder generally carries a sentence of 10-18 years (not including felony-murder). However, Washington State did not offer parole at the time of the film like other states did. To be released, she'd have a hearing in front of the Washington State Clemency and Pardons Board, not a Parole Board. And it's unlikely they'd grant her a release. But in Texas for example, she could possibly get parole after serving at least half her sentence.

Bishop73

Question: Why did they need the battery attached to the chair exactly? They were able to move around previously without being plugged into the wall, so why the sudden change of being unable to move without the battery?

Answer: A couple things I noticed, in the beginning a lot of times the cords are missing when we should see them, so perhaps Kirby is suppose to be plugged in the whole time. They made it clear he was plugged in as they were leaving, even though they also made it clear Toaster didn't need to be plugged in. But also, it could be the same as lacking a lunch. They could move around without being plugged in, but would still need power at some point the same way people would need to eat. Or because Kirby is doing the heavy work. In the book they made it clear the vacuum needed to be plugged in and was using extension cords at first as they rolled around outside, but they didn't make any indications the other appliances were still plugged in, but the other appliances couldn't move like the vacuum, and certainly not as freely as in the film.

Question: Why didn't Stark and the government just hire Toomes and his guys? They could afford to do this, everyone's happy, no super villainy.

Rob245

Answer: They wanted an internal department to handle the cleanup, in part to prevent any contractors holding onto alien technology (exactly like Toomes ended up doing). They probably could have applied for jobs in the Department of Damage Control, but it would have been for a lot less money than the contract they initially had to carry out the same work independently.

Answer: They were attempting to keep the alien technology from falling into the wrong hands, to avoid precisely what ends up happening; people using it for crime.

I Dream of Jesus - S7-E2

Question: Brian is noted as not believing in God. How could Brian not believe in God when, in this episode, he has dinner with Jesus who is the son of God?

Answer: Brian was skeptical that Jesus was who he said he was throughout the episode; this even after Jesus performed the "miracles" of turning people's food into hot fudge sundaes and enlarging Lois' breasts. Being atheist, Brian would also probably not believe that Jesus was the son of God; some Biblical scholars question whether or not the "real" Jesus actually claimed to be the son of God.

zendaddy621

Answer: Members of the family might have pulled the wheelchair up the stairs if he couldn't get to the top himself.

Casual Person

The One With the Sharks - S9-E4

Question: What's the name of the "scary painting" that Joey saw in the apartment of the girl he thought he'd slept with before? The strange and creepy painting (black and white, with an amorphous body and a chair). I really, really want to know who is the artist. Not Gladys - that's Phoebe's painting that comes out of the frame.

David Cañedo Mesinas

Answer: The painting doesn't have a name, and if it does it is never mentioned in this episode.

Answer: It's not specified. She recovered from the beating and presumably lived as a slave either until the end of the Civil War or until her death.

raywest

Answer: In this episode I think Monica knew Phoebe had to clean so she asked if she wanted to go to the movies, knowing she would say no, and she had brought her label maker with her so she could help.

Question: When they're in Paris, and the three-wheeler (I forget his name) sees them, he makes an attempt to escape. If he was on their side, why'd he try to get away from them?

Answer: There was another car with the three wheel car. He was probably just being incognito to help them. In other words if the lemons found out he was working for Finn, he would be targeted.

Question: Was the whole pileup because death tried to kill the survivors of the pileup? I mean he tried to fix their earlier survival due to the survivors of flight 180. I don't get the whole relation of the survivors of the pileup to the survivors of flight 180.

Answer: There is a scene later on where several of the characters realise they were 'supposed to die' in the first film but were spared because Death tied up the loose ends from the people who got off 180. They are loosely linked to the survivors of the first film, yes. Death is catching up in this film by causing the pile up, but because of the girls premonition, they basically cheated death twice.

Question: During the scene with "live it up" playing in the background, what was it and where were they? With Simone being there it is obviously full of hookers but was it a party, and if so, whose and why? The whole scene just feels weird.

The_Iceman

Answer: It is a party thrown by one of Sue's socialite friends, presumably the husky-voiced woman whose crotch Mick grabs. The party is not "full of hookers", Simone is there as the hired escort of the old man she is dancing with, who Mick naively believes to be her father. We can assume the old man paid for Simone to be his date to the party and likely for some time alone with her afterwards. There is no stated reason for why the party is being thrown.

BaconIsMyBFF

Answer: The bulldozer could be disassembled, the individual pieces carried down, and then reassembled once underground.

BaconIsMyBFF

Episode #2.7 - S2-E7

Question: Mary states that Sybil is 21 in 1919, but says he's born in 1895. Also she dies in 1920, so that makes her 24-25, was that an age mistake?

Answer: According to various Downton Abbey online sources, Sybil Crawley was born between May - June 1895 and died between April - August 1920, (exact months were not listed). She would have been 24 years old when she died. Mary's comment can be attributed as a character mistake or, more likely, the screenwriters were careless.

raywest

Question: Did Alice tell Dan the truth at the end? Did she really stop loving him that moment and for what? It wasn't the fact he played her, not telling that she new, because she told him it was over before he told her he knew.

Answer: Earlier in the movie, Alice said, "I'm the one who leaves. I'm supposed to leave you. I'm the one who leaves." To me, this implies that she likes to control relationships. Dan has begun asking questions about Larry. She realises that he will not leave the issue alone. Even though he insists that the truth does not matter to him, he will not stop questioning her. Therefore, she ends the relationship before *he* can possibly end it someday. She wants to leave him before he can possibly change his mind and leave her. Over time, her encounter with Larry might have bothered him more and more.

Answer: It wasn't just that she sang a song he likes, she sang arguably the most well-known song from his favorite film in front of a huge crowd of people. It was a public, heartfelt apology rather than the abrupt, private apology she gave earlier.

BaconIsMyBFF

Question: Why wasn't Erickson punished for being out of tune and not knowing it? Also, what would Fletcher have done if Metz said he was out of tune?

MikeH

Answer: Erickson isn't punished because, in Fletcher's mind, the greater sin is not being out of tune, or even of not admitting to it, but of not knowing it...Erickson knew he was out of tune (or at least, Fletcher thinks he did), so Fletcher let it slide. As to the second questions...do you mean, if Metz had said that Erickson was out of tune (because he does say he, himself, is)? Given Fletcher's personality and volatile nature, it's hard to say...he might have respected Metz for being able to identify who was out of tune, or he may have been even angrier at him for being a snitch. Probably the only person who can say for sure is Damien Chazelle. But I don't think there was anything Metz could have said in that moment that would have saved him.

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.