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: Why would the Trade Federation need the queen to sign a treaty to make their invasion legal if they've already invaded the place and taken over anyway?

Answer: They want the rest of the Republic to believe the queen has legitimately sanctioned the trade treaty.

raywest Premium member

Not just the trade treaty, but the occupation too.

lionhead

Yes, that too.

raywest Premium member

Question: What did Rooney mean when he told Grace to "go soak your head"?

Answer: It's an old insult, somewhat equivalent to 'buzz off'.

Brian Katcher

Answer: The other answer (about buzzing off) is correct, but the phrase has multiple definitions. It can also mean that someone doesn't know what they're talking about, or a person who is extremely frustrated and unable to express themselves calmly or coherently need to cool off.

raywest Premium member

Show generally

Question: The Monsignor Martinez - in addition to being a priest, is he supposed to be a vigilante? Or a mercenary?

Answer: I get the impression he's some sort of master criminal, though the specific details are left up to the viewer's imagination.

Brian Katcher

Question: In Resident Evil Extinction, the White Queen says Alice's blood is the cure for the whole infection. So what the heck was everyone doing the whole time? Why act so surprised to find a cure, which by the way came out of nowhere, when you were the cure the entire time?

Taken250

Answer: In all honestly... this film series isn't one to shy away from ret-conning elements of prior films. ("Ret-con" being short for "retroactive continuity" - a storytelling device in which rules and plot-points are either changed or ignored in later installments.) This just seems to be another example of a ret-con. The idea that Alice was the "cure" all along would have ended the series a lot sooner, and they wanted to make more movies, so they just sort-of "ignored" this idea in the sequels that followed "Extinction."

TedStixon

Question: Why didn't IMF just raid Ambrose's house when they realised he only had a cure and no virus?

Answer: As Ambrose says, Ethan Hunt "favours misdirection over confrontation" - Ambrose's house is heavily guarded and fortified, and an armed raid could result in the deaths of IMF personnel including Ethan and his team, or other innocent parties such as Nyah. Better to break into Biocyte covertly and destroy the virus, with a much lower risk of casualties.

Sierra1 Premium member

Question: Why didn't Hulk use the Infinity Gauntlet to snap Thanos and his army? He was able to snap everybody that Thanos killed and survived, so he would have survived another snap.

Answer: The gauntlet fell off after his first snap, then Thanos arrived from the past and destroyed the building, separating them. Hulk never got near the gauntlet and the stones during the ensuing battle, so he didn't have an opportunity to try a second snap to destroy Thanos.

Sierra1 Premium member

Really what they should have done was pulled the stones off the gauntlet and separated them again, and not run around with a fully assembled and powered up Gauntlet for Thanos to grab.

Vader47000

I agree.

That would mean they had to touch them, and nobody besides Hulk, Thor and Carol could touch one without dying.

lionhead

Ordinary humans can't just grab an infinity stone. Even when Thanos takes the power stone out of gauntlet you see it start to destroy them.

Only the Power Stone has been shown to kill normal people who try to hold it. Hawkeye literally held the Soul Stone in his hand in this movie.

Phaneron Premium member

Because he made the necessary sacrifice. Anyone else touching it, big problem. Could be an exception though. The power, reality and space gems have been proven to be untouchable and killing anyone who does (with exceptions though). Time gem is very carefully handled as well so I wouldn't touch that one either. Mind gem, who knows?

lionhead

I don't recall the Time Stone killing anyone who touched it. The only example I can think of was the Red Skull presumably being killed when he handled the Tesseract, but was in actuality teleported to Vormir. The Reality Stone has a will of its own, so someone could feasibly handle it without harm. You're wonder about the Mind Stone is correct, as no human character was shown in any movie to have handled it directly. Overall though, I would say that I disagree with someone trying to remove a stone from the gauntlet, as one stone could easily be lost, and Thanos could still kill every hero at the battle even with one or more stones missing.

Phaneron Premium member

The reality stone attaches itself to anyone touching it like a parasite and slowely kills them. I'd say it's a bad idea to touch it. As for the time stone only the ancient one and Hulk actually touched it and there is reason Strange handles it carefully and without touching it. As for the Red skull, don't really know if he is really alive on Vormir. Who knows what the tesseract did to him?

lionhead

Whether or not Red Skull is still alive is an interesting topic, but either way, I'd argue that while the Tesseract transported him, it itself is not what made him in his current state, but rather his curse to guard the Soul Stone and the planet of Vormir itself, as it is a dominion of death as Nebula stated.

Phaneron Premium member

Show generally

Question: Assuming that Moonbase Alpha is on the side facing the Earth (which is seen on the horizon over the base in the pilot episode "Breakaway"), making travel to it and back easier, and the nuclear waste on the far side, away from Earth, wouldn't the explosion propel the moon towards the Earth, thereby dooming Alpha to certain destruction?

Movie Nut

Answer: Not necessarily - The gravitational fields of Earth and the Sun could have deflected the moon away from the solar system.

Seniram

Question: Elinor at first didn't seem to care about burning Merida's bow, especially since she didn't approve of Fergus giving her the bow, and became furious after Merida shot for her own hand. What made Elinor rescue the bow from the fire?

Answer: Elinor tossed the bow into the fire in a fit of anger, then regretted what she did and rescued it.

raywest Premium member

To add to raywest's answer, she threw it in a fit of rage, yes. As a parent, you sometimes disagree with your children's passions, while you try to steer and guide them, they love what they love. She may have disagreed with Merida having the bow, but she also knew how important it was to her. Its hard to explain, but basically while she objected to Merida having it, she knew it was the one thing that made her happy... she loves her daughter and wants her to be happy. She destroyed it in a fit of rage, and then realised she destroyed, for lack of better words, her daughter's "happiness." Marrying her off was one thing, burning her only joy is another.

Question: How could Bellatrix possibly have recognised Neville?

THE GAMER NEXT DOOR

Answer: She's seen a picture? Been given his description? There are any number of possibilities.

Jason Hoffman

Answer: I'd say this is a deliberate movie mistake to provide plot exposition. Bellatrix was one of the Death Eaters who tortured Neville's parents into permanent insanity when Neville was a young boy. It's unlikely Bellatrix would recognize Neville on sight, but this reminds us of her involvement in the Longbottom family tragedy, and shows that Neville's fighting Voldemort and the Death Eaters is personally motivated.

raywest Premium member

Question: Spider-Man: Far From Home shows that people snapped back after the "blip" come back in exactly the same place they disappeared from - mid-band performance, for example, and getting a basketball to the head as a result. Have the makers of either movie expanded on the ramifications of this? Because people snapped off a flight for example, might reappear mid-air...but with no plane, so plummet to their deaths.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Answer: Kevin Feige said in a Reddit thread that Hulk specifically brought everyone back in a safe place.

Chosen answer: The makers haven't said anything that I have heard, but we can see and deduce a couple things. First, if you watch the band members disappear, then the reappearance, those that reappear are not at the locations of those that disappeared (note the two videos are 90° off from each other), meaning either some compensation happened in Stark's invocation, or the filmmakers made a mistake in their portrayal. Second, we don't hear anyone in the movie make any comment about such problems so that implies the blip-ending had a compensation for such events so they didn't happen, though to prevent calamity, not simple harm. If you take this issue to the extreme, the planet is no longer where it was, plus has spun on its axis, so if no compensation occurred, everyone would have reappeared in space millions of miles away from the planet's new location, which they didn't.

Question: How was Billy considered "worthy" to begin with? When we first meet him, he is petulant, selfish, and cruel to anyone that wants to help him. Once he does get the power of Shazam, he becomes even more selfish, petty, and reckless.

BaconIsMyBFF

Answer: He went out of his way to protect his new foster brother, who's disabled mind you, when he was being picked on by the Steven King novel bullies. He showed he had some virtue. And, on top of that, his other behavior, like stealing the police car, while bad, did have a noble reason behind it of him trying to find his mother. So he wasn't perfect, but he had some virtue. And, as the old wizard said, he was out of time and Billy was his last choice.

Quantom X Premium member

Answer: In addition to the other answer, it's also a pretty common trope in films, stories, etc. for a character who is imperfect to be considered "worthy" or "pure of heart" not because of their actions but because of their potential to learn from their mistakes and do great things when given power. Billy is actually a pretty good example of this - he's brash and a bit selfish, but ultimately proves to be a capable hero by learning from his mistakes and growing as a person, thus ultimately becoming worthy of the power.

TedStixon

Question: Whenever Bruce transforms into the Hulk, why is he always in his underwear? Other versions of the Hulk depict him in full pants so why would Bruce's pants also rip along with his clothes when transforming into the Hulk, leaving him only in his underwear? Maybe this was due to the fact that the crew wanted to make the Hulk more stronger and more bigger in this film.

John Carlos

Answer: First, he isn't always in his underwear. In one transformation he's in purple pants, and in another he's completely nude. As to why, it's likely because the filmmakers realised it's unrealistic that Bruce would always be wearing pants that could withstand the radical change in size. Also, as we see the hulk grows larger physically when he becomes more angry, and at some point no fabric will stay in place.

Jason Hoffman

Show generally

Question: What kind of clock or watch is on Com. Reagan's desk?

Answer: Maritime.

Question: This might be a silly question but it did puzzle me just a little bit. The old man in the film, when Phil first starts to care for him he starts referring to him as Dad and Pops. Is there supposed to be any actual relation between them, or is he just referring to him as this as sort of a kind title?

Quantom X Premium member

Answer: I think he is just using them as terms of elderly respect. It would be pretty callous even for Phil to completely disregard the homeless man at the beginning of the film if he was some sort of relative. The old man also does nothing to indicate a shared history between them.

Phaneron Premium member

It was a common term that was often used in the early-to-mid 20th century where a kindly, older man would affectionately be referred to as "Pops." In movies of that era, there was often a minor character referred to in this way, particularly if no-one knew his name (i.e. the stage doorman, the custodian, etc).

raywest Premium member

Question: What is the purpose or the story behind the little stuffed dog that appears in so many scenes? It's on the table when the guys are playing poker, it appears in the bowling scene too.

Answer: Presumably it's a favorite mascot of the group. There's likely no backstory per se, it's just something the filmmakers did to add to sense that these people have been together for a very long time.

Jason Hoffman

Question: When Gregory was singing beautifully for his audition, did he really sing that well, or did he lip-sync from someone else singing?

Answer: That was Zachary Gordon's actual singing voice.

BaconIsMyBFF

Question: What's the name of the song after Optimus says his speech?

Mat mckone 24

Answer: "New Divide" by Linkin Park.

Question: When Cal and Jack escort Rose to a boat to get off the ship, we see a father saying goodbye to his wife and daughters. What is the name of this actor? Was he credited?

Answer: If you mean the one who says, "It's goodbye for a little while...", the actor's name is John Walcutt. He's credited as "1st Class Husband."

Question: Why would Ben/Riley/Abigail need to go all the way to Philadelphia to see the Silence Dogood letters? Surely they would have been available online in 2004 when this movie was made? Ian found info on "Pass and Stow" online. (01:07:05 - 01:14:05)

History_Movie_Nerd

Answer: In reality, they wouldn't...the only reason they go to Philadelphia is to advance the plot. This has been discussed by numerous critics and can be classified as a mistake (either a "Deliberate Mistake", or character stupidity).

Question: 2 questions: 1. What Is the significanceof the Deathly Hallows story (Luna's dad wears it around his neck, is it some sort of religion?), and 2. Why did Dumbledore draw the symbol in correspondence with Grindlewald?

dannydandan8888

Answer: It's a bit complicated. The Deathly Hallows were not tied to any religion but to mythology. They were the three powerful and revered magical objects (the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone, and the Cloak of Invisibility) that, through history and legend, were believed to give whoever possessed them immense power and mastery over death. The Deathly Hallows symbol, like the one Mr. Lovegood wore, is a circle, a triangle, and a straight line that represent the three objects.Voldemort only coveted the Elder Wand, wielded by Dumbledore, because it was the most powerful wand in the world. Dumbledore won the wand from his former friend, the evil wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, after defeating him in a fierce duel. Mr. Lovegood merely serves as a plot device to explain the significance and lore of the Hallows that were tied to Harry's ancestors, the Peverells. Dumbledore placed the Deathly Hallows symbol in the book as a clue to Hermione about the Elder Wand's importance. In the book, when Harry became the Elder Wand's master, he chose to return it to Dumbledore's tomb; in the movie, he destroys the wand. He deliberately dropped the Resurrection Stone in the Forbidden Forest so that no-one, including himself, would be tempted to summon a spirit from the Netherworld. He kept the cloak, that he had inherited from his father. Harry understood that truly "mastering" death was not fearing it.

raywest Premium member

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.