Question: Who shows up after the truck goes through the ground?
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: As the Cerberus codes have been entered, with the time limit set prior to the missile's destruction, how did Jang expect to leave the country within what I assume was the 5 minute time limit and not feel the fallout from the nuclear missiles, or be killed or at least full of radiation, and also, why take the president then?
Answer: Kang wanted the USA to suffer famine and be a 3rd world country. His plan was to get in, set off all the warheads and plunge the USA into the dark ages. During one of the exchanges between Kang and Mike, Kang says "I just want the USA to experience poverty and famine." So he had no plans to survive his mission. He needed the president to gain the 3rd code incase it couldn't be broken by the hacker. He faked the presidents death to give himself more time with the president.
Answer: My best guess is they went in knowing it was a suicide mission.
That suggested answer doesn't make any sense. Jang idea was to capture the code to start a war presumably between N &S Korea. There is no indication that Jang's computer whiz had the ability crack the code, or was even trying, and that sounds unlikely. I think the whole story line went off the tracks at that point and they were trying to wrap up the shooting. Pretty shaky in my opinion. Just a movie with some good stars and and a lot of stuff got blown-up and the good guys won.
Answer: The Washington monument is destroyed in one scene and in a later scene, it is fully erect.
This isn't an answer, this seems to be a mistake entry.
Question: In the last shot of the knight waving goodbye to the Joneses, is it just me or has the actor been swapped out with a dummy?
Answer: It is the real actor and not a robotic dummy. He moves a bit slowly and deliberately, apparently for effect, but it's a real person.
Just to be clear, I'm not referring to when we see the knight raise his hand to wave goodbye to them, but rather right after Indy says "Please Dad," and he and Henry begin to flee the collapsing temple, you can see the knight in the background with his arm raised and he looks rather stiff. You can see it at around 2:22 of this clip: https://youtu.be/PAfZ7V2VyD8.
I took a closer look. There is the shot where the knight raises his hand and you can see him moving. It then cuts to Indy and Henry, then a cut back to the knight where it briefly looks like it could be a mannequin, then there is another cut and back to the knight again and this time it's definitely the live actor. So yes, for that brief long shot, I think it could be a dummy. This may have been for the purpose of efficiency in the filming, it being easier to use a stationary prop for doing multiple takes, rather than the live actor just standing there. Sometimes they do what is called "pick up" shots, where, post-production, a part of a scene or close-ups are re-shot or added weeks or months later, and it would just be easier to use mannequin rather than recall the actor.
But he does move, so most likely a real person.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Question: Why did the ex husband kill his former mistress turned wife?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Answer: The painting doesn't have a name, and if it does it is never mentioned in this episode.
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.
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.
Question: How did they put the little bulldozer under the factory, when there's no elevator built yet?
Answer: The bulldozer could be disassembled, the individual pieces carried down, and then reassembled once underground.
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.
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: If you mean the men on motorcycles, they are part of the security detail Steve hired to escort the truck.
BaconIsMyBFF