Question: At the end of the movie Amelia and Larry are saying their goodbyes - Larry tries to bring up what will happen to Amelia at sunrise, and Amelia says that she knows what will become of her. Is it implied that Amelia will not make it back to the Smithsonian before sunrise and turn to dust, or is it implied that she will make it back, but will not be able to come to life at night due to not having the tablet near her?
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: In one of the cut-away scenes, Peter is riding a bike. He tells Brian that he is "one of those people now." What does he mean by "those people"?
Answer: I took it as an annoying bike-guy in general. Since professional or not, they're all annoying.
Answer: This occurs in a flashback where Peter is recalling a time Brian discovered his "hidden shame." In the memory, Brian is driving a car. Peter pulls up next to him on a bicycle. He is decked out in a full, multi-neon-colored lycra spandex pro bicycling get-up, with matching reflecting helmet and some kind of rear view mirror attached. The ensemble is complete with riding gloves and the latest athletic shoes. When Brian notices it's him, he exclaims, "PETER?!" To which Peter responds, "Brian, I'm sorry. I'm one of these guys now...I'm SORRY, Brian. I'M SORRY! (as Brian drives off, aghast) " By "these guys," Peter means the kind of guy who, though a casual cyclist and nowhere near professional level, still buys all of the latest riding clothes and gear, making him look silly and pretentious (in "Family Guy" terms, he looks like a "douchebag").
Question: I don't fully understand the ending. Why did Charlie want to have his house in the chocolate factory?
Answer: The narrator tells us that Charlie accepted Wonka's offer to take over the factory "on one condition." We then see Charlie come home to his family's house - a place of warmth and love - with WIllie Wonka in tow to share dinner. Then the camera pans out to show that the house is, indeed, inside the factory, with giant salt shaker-like machines providing the snow. Then we see an Oompa-Loompa, who has apparently been our narrator throughout, tell us the ending of the story. Charlie won a factory. But more important, "Willie Wonka got something even better - a family." So, what was Charlie's "one condition?" Recall that in the scene before, Charlie watched intently as Wonka reconnected with his dentist father after years of estrangement. The "one condition" probably wasn't to have the house moved into the factory. Rather, it was probably his condition that Wonka become an adopted member of the Bucket family. By moving the house into the factory, everyone's happy ending could be met. Perhaps moving the house was more Wonka's idea than Charlie's. Plus, it just makes for a hell of a cute ending, with those fun little nested surprises throughout.
Question: After accepting David as a son, Monica in a wedding dress wears perfume, and she and Henry in a tuxedo go out. Where did they go? They had a wedding?
Answer: It's not a wedding dress, just a fancy dress. They're heading to a formal party.
Question: In the first sequence, there is a trap with Indy's competition's body stuck on it. Although it is sprung by somebody breaking the beam of light (which I find hard to believe, given that it and other traps were done without any kind of more modern technology we're used to, but suspend disbelief for the sake of the movie), how was it reset without human intervention after Forrestal was killed, and prepared for Sapito?
Chosen answer: Likely, it wasn't. The Hovitos are still guarding the temple. Presumably, they maintain and reset the traps.
You'd think in that case that they would've removed the body.
I don't know, I'd be more afraid to rob the place with a dead body stuck there than without.
Why? It's a good warning to other would-be thieves.
What better way to scare away future intruders.
Answer: More than likely, they left Forrestal's body as a warning.
Answer: The character played by Alfred Molina is actually named "Satipo," after a town. "Sapito" would mean "small frog." It's a common typo, but the more you know.
Question: Was there anything in the film stating why the Jaegers couldn't be remotely controlled? I get the premise of 2 pilots and drifting, but it seems like the robots weren't controlled by cables and wires and the interface could have been off-site, just like piloting drones.
Chosen answer: It is stated that due to the sheer size of the jaegers it is incredibly complex to actually pilot one. So complex that advanced mind-linking technology was developed for the sole purpose of controlling the jaegers in combat. Presumably that complexity necessitates having to actually be inside the jaeger to operate it efficiently. There is also the possibility that drifting technology has a short range or must be hardwired into the technology you wish to control.
Also, you have to consider transmission latency, the amount of data that has to be transferred, and the power of the transmitters that would be required to maintain that bandwidth. Considering that it requires two pilots to take the strain, I'm guessing that the bandwidth would be a lot more than you get from a wireless gigabit connection. And, of course, the aliens could probably figure out how to jam wireless transmissions if they wanted to. A direct connection is more reliable.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Question: What is the age difference between Victor and Logan?
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.
Question: What happened to Fifi, Roop and Charlie - they are not seen or mentioned for the rest of the film?
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?
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?
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.
I think they're pretty logical actually.
I think your opinion would be in the minority. There is nothing exceptionally convoluted, nor poorly reasoned in the response.
Answer: They were extraordinarily lucky. The crew quite often defies all odds and encounters literal miracles. For a period of time this even happened on a roughly weekly basis.
Question: What's the name of the club in the rave scene?
Chosen answer: The name of the club is Cafe Opera.
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."
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."
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)?
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?
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.
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.
Chosen answer: Amelia has no idea about the turning to dust at sunset consequence, but what she does know is she will disappear and not be found, as what happened to the real Amelia Earhart.
Scott215