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: Why do Marty's brother and sister get erased from top to bottom, and Marty just fades? Why can't they just all fade?


Chosen answer: The way I understand Doc's explanation, Dave and Linda were both erased completely because Marty interfered with their parents' meeting; thus the three children were erased from existence, from oldest to youngest. Marty only begins to fade because the timeline corrects itself before he gets erased completely.

Cubs Fan Premium member

Question: How much does Chip tip the bathroom attendant to make him leave?

Heather Benton Premium member

Chosen answer: $247.19 and a coupon for free HBO.

Grumpy Scot

Question: There's a scene in the Leaky Cauldron where an anonymous customer is reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and stirring a spoon in his coffee cup without touching it. Is this just a random display of magic, or is it some kind of inside physics joke? I seem to remember some example (maybe about entropy?) in Hawking's book that included reference to a coffee cup, but it's been a really long time since I read it. Does anyone know what, if anything, this scene is supposed to signify?

Chosen answer: It is a bit of an inside joke, but not as significant as you make it out to be. The plot in "Azkaban" involves time travel, and the book, written by the famous British scientist, fits in with that premise. The magic being used to stir the coffee is probably just that—a demonstration of magic. It also draws attention to Ian Brown of the band Stone Roses, who makes a cameo appearance as the coffee drinker.

raywest Premium member

Question: More of a book question, but which sub-species of Hobbit are the four ones in the fellowship? I've heard that Sam is of a lesser species than the other three. I've also heard that either Pippin or Merry is a different species; how does that work with them being cousins?

Chosen answer: To think of the three divisions of hobbits as separate species is incorrect, they are simply tribal variations, with none being any "lesser" than the others. The three types, the Fallohides, the Harfoots and the Stoors, hailed from different regions, but since all three sub-groups settled in the Shire, the hobbits have intermingled and intermarried over the centuries, making the differences considerably less clear, to the point where they can simply be considered one group, the Shire-Hobbits. Certain Hobbit families, however, do tend to retain a relatively strong blood link to a particular division - the Tooks and the Brandybucks, for example, tend to retain the height and the impetuous nature of the Fallohide hobbits. The Baggins family is of unclear bloodline, but Frodo would also carry a strong strain of Fallohide blood from his mother, Primula Brandybuck. The Gamgee family are likewise of uncertain bloodline, but Sam's relatively stocky build and affinity with the soil and agriculture would suggest Stoor-ish blood.

Tailkinker Premium member

Question: I am resubmitting my question because the posted answer is incomplete and/or irrelevant. In FOTR, Bilbo says something like "There has always been a Baggins living at Bag End, and there always will be." Presumably he thinks Frodo, and Frodo's descendants, will always live there, but Frodo goes to the Undying Lands, leaving no heirs behind. In the book, Sam and Rosie move into Bag End, but this does not happen in the movie - at the end of ROTK, you can see that the hobbit hole Sam goes home to is not Bag End. My question is, why did the filmmakers change these 2 things? In other words, if Bilbo's line is included to make it important who ends up in Bag End, why not show who does end up there in ROTK? If it is not important who lives there (thus explaining why Sam and Rosie don't appear there), then why have Bilbo make a fuss over it in FOTR? Someone answered that "Bilbo is simply stating the way things have always been", but this is not what I'm asking. I'm not asking "why would Bilbo say this?", I'm asking "why did Peter Jackson think it was important to have this line in the movie?" Why make a scene about who Bilbo thinks will end up in Bag End, and then not show who does end up in Bag End? I want to know what dramatic or story-telling purpose the juxtaposition of these 2 scenes (Bilbo's line and showing that Sam and Rosie do not move into Bag End) serves.

Chosen answer: I think the point is that, at the time he speak the line, Bilbo has NO WAY to know the events that are to come. Clearly, he thinks that the Baggins' will always live at Bag End. How can he possibly know the way things will turn out? Even in the book, at the beginning of the story, Bilbo has no way to know that Sam and Rosie will move into Bag End and that Frodo will not. Also, you might be attaching far too much significance to this one line. We cannot assume that the line was included for the express purpose of "making it important who ends up in Bag End". All that matters is Bilbo is making an assumption that Baggins' will always live there.

wizard_of_gore Premium member

Question: What does Lord Beckett mean when he says to tell Davy Jones, "To give no quarter"?

raywest Premium member

Chosen answer: In this case it implies showing no mercy or clemency, to leave no one one alive and take no prisoners, no offer to retreat for the enemy, the Black Pearl, which Cutler Beckett knows would surely make Jones very happy.

Super Grover Premium member

Question: Was Kim wanting to follow a U2 tour a decision made because both the band and Liam Neeson are Irish?

Cubs Fan Premium member

Chosen answer: Bit of a tenous link that to be honest, I just put it down to her and Amanda liking the band and wanted to go on the European tour to see them.


Question: I have a 4 part question. 1. If Batman really represents what's good and true, then why does he allow Harvey keep his clean public image when Batman knows this isn't true? 2. Does Batman realize that this might have adverse effects? 3. Given that Batman has a better than average knowledge of the law, why doesn't he realize that he is essentially becoming an accessory after the fact (he knows that Dent killed several officers), or committing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? 4. Finally does Batman think the people will be upset by the oh-so-shocking concept (note sarcasm) of a politician being involved in a scandal?

Chosen answer: If people only have one hope, you don't take it away from them. A martyr is a powerful symbol - if people believe that Harvey Dent died as a good man fighting against the forces of lawlessness and corruption, then he becomes a rallying point, a battle cry for those looking to carry on the fight in his name. It doesn't matter that it's not true - what matters is that people believe, and continue to believe, in Harvey Dent. If the truth, that Harvey died a deranged killer, came out, then everything that Harvey did will be tainted, morale would plummet and the city would be right back to square one. As for Bruce becoming an accessory after the fact, of course he knows, but do you really think he cares? Likewise representing "what's good and true" - most of what he does as Batman is completely illegal - assault, kidnapping, property damage, illicit surveillance, just in this film alone. But he does it for the good of the city. Same with covering up for Harvey. It's what's right - doesn't matter if it's legal, or even true, it's what needs to be done.

Tailkinker Premium member

Show generally

Question: I heard Orlando Bloom was in an episode of this show. Is it true?

Chosen answer: Yes, he appeared in an episode called "Judgement Day", shown in 2000.

Tailkinker Premium member

Question: When the dad and his cop friend are heading to 666 Shadowbrook Road, they drive through Dracula's hearse, but in the next scene Dracula gets out of the hearse. So when did Dracula turn into a ghost?

Chosen answer: Being able to turn into mist or dust is a an ability often attributed to vampires in fiction.

Grumpy Scot

Question: How did the bomb at MCU leave everyone else totally incapacitated, while the Joker was completely unharmed? I know he has remarkable tolerance for pain, but come on! Also, if he was wearing some kind of protective clothing, they would have discovered it. So how did all the cops get knocked out while the Joker just walked away?

Chosen answer: Look where he's standing just before it goes off. The Joker's carefully positioned himself close to a set of heavy filing cabinets, which are between him and the blast, protecting his legs and almost all of his torso. As the bomb goes off, you can see him duck his head down, allowing the blast to pass him by almost completely. He gets to walk away unscathed because the blast never really hits him.

Tailkinker Premium member

Question: When Aramis is reading at the beginning, saying that bit about the storming of the Bastille and of records being found of the prisoner who was only known as "the man in the iron mask", was that actually true - about the prisoner number and/or the iron-masked man part?

Chosen answer: It is partially true. Author Alexander Dumas based his character on records that were recovered about an unknown prisoner whose identity was kept secret by a black cloth that constantly covered his head. The facts gradually changed as a myth grew up around this account, and the cloth mask was eventually said to be iron. This person, who is believed to have been of high rank, was incarcerated in several prisons, including the Bastille. Dumas adapted the legend for his novel and made the unknown man the twin brother of King Louis XIV. However, the man's true identity has never been discovered. The movie has also distorted historical facts about the Bastille. It was originally built as a fortress during The Hundred Years War, and only later was it used as a prison. (It only held about 50 people.) When it was stormed by French peasants in 1789, there were only seven inmates, and it is believed the rioters were actually looking for ammunition rather than attempting to free prisoners.

raywest Premium member

Question: In FOTR, Bilbo says something like "There has always been a Baggins living at Bag End, and there always will be." Presumably he thinks Frodo, and Frodo's descendants, will always live there, but Frodo goes to the Undying Lands, leaving no heirs behind. In the book, Sam and Rosie move into Bag End, but this does not happen in the movie - at the end of ROTK, you can see that the hobbit hole Sam goes home to is not Bag End. My question is, why did the filmmakers change these 2 things? In other words, if Bilbo's line is supposed to make it important who ends up in Bag End, why not show who does end up there in ROTK? If it is not important who lives there (thus explaining why Sam and Rosie don't appear there), then why have Bilbo make a fuss over it in FOTR? I just don't understand what the point is.

Chosen answer: Bilbo is simply stating the way things have always been. At that point, he has no reason to believe that Frodo and his descendants will not live in Bag End. As to Sam returning to 3 Bagshot Row instead of Bag End, having him go to Bag End would have caused some extra time to be added to the film. The film is long enough, and explaining that Frodo left Bag End to Sam and his family would've added too much unnecessary time.

Question: This applies to all 3 films. Wouldn't someone eventually see Spiderman coming out of Peter Parker's apartment and put 2 and 2 together? Doesn't this seem just a bit careless on Peter's part?


Chosen answer: Answered in the comics: Peter's Spider-Sense tells him if someone is looking when he's about to enter/exit the apartment as Spider-Man.

Captain Defenestrator Premium member

Question: At the end they want the public to believe that Batman killed those people because they could see him as a villain since he is dark, etc., but why not say the Joker killed those people? The public would believe that for sure.

Chosen answer: Harvey Dent dies after the Joker is finally in police custody, so the Joker couldn't have killed him. The only other people who could have killed him are Gordon or Batman. Blaming Gordon would be just as bad as saying Dent turned bad, so Batman took the blame. The film ends before anyone is officially blamed, so it's possible that the Joker could be blamed for some of the cops' deaths, but the death of Dent (which is the most symbolic) would still be blamed on Batman.


Question: This has been killing me since I saw the movie in theaters: in the final fight between Joker and Batman, Batman gets caught up in some netting in the room they're fighting in, and as Joker moves in he says, "All the old familiar places" as he begins attacking Batman. What does that mean? The only explanation I can think of is that it might be an allusion to Tim Burton's Batman in which Joker and Batman fight at the top of a building.

Chosen answer: The Joker is actually referring to a old song from WW2: "I'll Be Seeing You". It goes, "I'll be seeing you/In all the old familiar places/That this heart of mine embraces/All day through". They were also in a similar position after the car chase, before Gordon stopped the Joker.

CCARNI Premium member

Question: The old man remarks that he was struck by lightning seven times. I recall him talking about six different times, does he ever talk about the seventh? Also, when were the times that he was struck?

Chosen answer: Here are the "strikes": fixing a leaky roof,while checking the mail, milking the cow, driving his car, minding his own business in a field, taking a dog for a walk, and then at the end there was no "story", but he was by a fence (just before the credits). I believe these are correct.

CCARNI Premium member

Question: In the jail when its "Feeding time", what are the animals and where can i find pics?

Chosen answer: They are dogs that were genitically enhanced. If you want to see them (briefly) goto: at 1:43.

CCARNI Premium member

Question: When Marty is exploring 2015, who is the man who talks about the Cubs winning the World Series? He looks like a younger actor wearing 'older' make-up, suggesting that he has played another character somewhere within the trilogy.

Chosen answer: He's an older version of Terry, the auto mechanic who fixed Biff's car in 1955 (and charges him "300 bucks"). Originally the scene with old Terry was longer and made his appearance more relevant, but the scene was trimmed for time.


Question: I can't help noticing that in every scene on Earth the terrain is bathed in brilliant sunlight yet the entire planet is meant to be permanently covered in thick (presumably toxic) clouds. Is this at all possible?

Chosen answer: Earth is meant to be uninhabitable -- not necessarily due to "thick ... clouds". Earth's environment is inhospitable to humans in many ways, including trash and air quality and presumably water quality. No specific mention of "thick clouds."

Brenda Elzin

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.