Question: Would Gus not die instantly from his injuries of that explosion? Instead, he has time to walk out, straighten his tie, traumatize the nurses, then die? Or is that all for the sake of good TV?
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: When Steve Zahn is in prison, wouldn't his 6-month sentence be extended after assaulting an officer, not once, but twice?
Answer: He was thrown in the solitary confinement for another 3 months, which makes it 9 months in prison.
Question: Which Robin is it in this movie? It's hard for me to tell. His personality is kinda like a mix of Jason Todd and Tim Drake, but he talks a lot kinda like Dick Grayson and fights with a staff like Dick from Teen Titans. So I can't quite tell which Robin it is.
Answer: Tim Drake.
Question: Does anyone know the reason why Tarantino decided to show the events in this film out of order, with the sequence of Jules and Vincent trying to get the stolen briefcase back to Marcellus and the many mishaps they run across along the way shown at the end, even though chronologically that actually happens before Vincent takes Mia out for her birthday dinner, and before Butch's story where he tries to escape town with his father's watch?
Answer: Expanding upon the other answer, the scene in the diner between Vincent, Jules, Ringo, and Yolanda is the clear emotional and thematic climax of the film. Therefore, shuffling the linear progression of the film to put it at the end makes sense from a storytelling point of view. Ending it with Butch and Fabienne escaping (chronologically, the last event in the narrative) would not have worked as a final scene.
Answer: Tarantino felt that telling the stories in a nonlinear structure would make the narrative more engaging since it would keep the viewer on their toes. Basically because you have to really pay attention to what's happening and put it together in your head like a puzzle. I'd also personally elaborate that it changes the way you view certain scenes because it leaps back and forth in time. Ex. We eventually learn that Vincent is destined to die, so the way his scenes later in the film play out hits you in a different way then they would have if the film followed a traditional linear structure.
Question: How does Roman find Sidney's info for the crisis hotline? We never see him use Dewey's phone and I don't think it's possible he attacked Neil because Sidney would've found out about it.
Answer: But Roman is in police custody when the call happens and Kincaid has Dewey's phone.
Answer: Just because we never see Roman use Dewey's phone does not mean that Roman could not have used it to trace Sid. Also just because we never see Roman attack Neil does not mean he didn't. Though the phone way is more likely.
They discuss who used Dewey's phone. He says only he and Kincaid used the phone.
Question: In the short story, Fred Evans (from the assurance company) fatally shoots Mort while Mort tries to kill Amy. Amy marries Ted. Does anyone know why this was changed? Has Stephen King commented on it?
Answer: One reason was that the filmmakers wanted a more "realistic" ending. In the story (SPOILER ALERT), it is revealed that Shooter is in fact real, a supernatural manifestation borne from Mort's mind (à la The Dark Half). To keep the film grounded, it was changed in the film to Shooter being all in Mort's mind, a symptom of his split personality disorder.
In addition to your answer, I think the movie version makes the audience feel more sympathy for Mort. Amy is more "at fault" for having the affair with Ted. In the book, Mort considers how the marriage had issues before Ted. He wonders if his relationship with Amy never really "existed" anyway.
Answer: Movies often change details to achieve a different effect and/or add an element of surprise. In this case, it was to streamline the ending, giving it an unexpected dark twist and a sad fate for the victims which erases any sympathy for Mort's situation and his mental illness. Movies tend to like shock value and more gruesome scenes. It also leaves open whether or not Mort will ever be proved guilty.
I know that movies often have changes from the books - it's why I asked the question in the first place. I was wondering if anyone knew the specific reason behind this particular change.
Question: When Alice goes to find Jerry in the mental institution and pays the guard to help her find him, she tells the guard to call the cops to tell them where she is as she gets closer to finding him. Why does she want them to know what she's doing? If she hadn't, Jerry would not have been shot.
Answer: Alice, being a lawyer and not a police officer or law enforcement officer, would need back up and or firepower to aid her in her rescuing of Jerry. If she had not had bothered with the authorities then she'd likely end up dead as well as Jerry getting shot. Remember that it was Jonas who shot Jerry and this would have happened whether the authorities had been called or not. (I think) also Alice is just one lone figure. Against a whole army of baddies.
Question: If Violet knew that Roz was eavesdropping on some of the employees in the restroom, shouldn't she just confront her about it or let everyone aware that Roz was eavesdropping them and blab it on Hart?
Answer: She does let people know, at least she warned Judy. But Roz is cagey (remember how she pulled her feet up so it looked like her stall was empty). As for confronting her, Roz was her supervisor and the boss' pet. If she told Hart that Violet was harassing her, it would go poorly for Violet.
Question: Why were Hesher and Nicole having sex? Had they become close enough to want each other or was Nicole really a prostitute like TJ accused her of being and needed the money? Or did Hesher just go around there and force the issue telling her he wanted her and forcing himself onto her?
Answer: She wasn't a prostitute...the broken mess in her and the broken mess in him needed sexual release. This was not a transaction or emotions...they were never going to be together, this was just sex.
Question: Is the timeline in this movie supposed to be somewhat non-linear? For example - in the scene where Karen and Gill go to Kevin's school to talk to the principal and psychologist, it is specifically mentioned that the new school year is 4 months away meaning it is approximately April since kids typically began school in August. Later, when Larry comes to visit and is talking to the dad in the garage, he mentions the Super Bowl (which you reasonably would have assumed they just watched) but that takes place in January. Plus, Larry's mom tells them that Cool (Larry's son) has just finished eating lunch. How? If they just watched the Super Bowl, it would be dinner since the game is always played in the afternoon. And despite being in "St. Louis" (we know they actually filmed in Florida), it never seems to be winter. The end is really the most confusing with the birthing order. We learned earlier in a scene that Karen is pregnant and is due in February. At some point around this time, we find out that Julie is also pregnant. At this point, Julie's mom Helen has just gone on her first date with Mr. Bowen (Garry's biology teacher) but the end, Helen is having a baby, Julie and Tod's baby barely looks a month old and Karen's baby looks to be about 4 months old. Did Helen marry Mr. Bowen immediately and get pregnant right away?
Answer: The movie is being told in a linear timeline. You have just about all the information right! I think the one thing you are letting throw you off is your assessment of the Super Bowl. You are surmising that they had just watched the game that day, but my assessment is that they are talking about the game from months ago (bearing in mind that Larry has not been around for years and has not seen his father since the last Super Bowl). My belief is the movie takes place in May. That would add up with Kevin's next year of school being 4 months away as schools usually start in September, and the math also works out with Karen's February due date. This would also explain your concern about the weather. As for Helen's baby, it is not made clear whether or not she married Mr. Bowman, nor does it really matter for timeline purposes, but they consummated the relationship not long after the first date and she got pregnant.
Question: After they blow up Madison Square Garden, as they are standing outside Godzilla makes an appearance after previously being assumed dead. How did it manage to get back to Madison Square Garden without being detected by anyone?
Answer: Everyone was so focused on the nest in the Garden, they all forgot about Godzilla.
Question: If they were still uncertain of their safety, why was the baby no longer under oxygen and his box with its lid? Especially when Lee had to leave them alone to look for the other kids.
Question: When Laura's hair is falling out in the school shower, she looks at Rochelle and says that she doesn't know what she did to deserve this. Why doesn't Rochelle say anything? She could at least point out the way that Laura bullies people, without revealing the witch coven.
Answer: I think this moment shows how people don't always "learn their lesson" — at least not when you think they should learn it. Rochelle seems to realize that her spell has been useless because Laura is not changing. She can't imagine why she deserves this.
Answer: Because unlike Laura, Rochelle is, or was, essentially a good person. And good people tend not to kick someone when they're down.
Question: Who was actually responsible for the events in the story happening in real life? When Skeeter tells the first half of the story everything in it comes true. Then, when Patrick and Bobbi tell the second half, anything they tell also happens.
Answer: It was only the parts that the children told or added that came true. For example, in the Cowboys and Indians story, he never gets a free Ferrari, but he does rescue a girl as Bobbi mentions, and he gets kicked by a little person.
Question: Michael is in the year 2023 (following the timeline of the movie), and then upon learning of Morty's true identity, he asks to be taken to a good place and then he appears at his son's wedding. Everything I've read about this movie says that the wedding is in the year 2030 (one article said 2033). But where in the movie is the proof that seven (or ten) years have gone by? His kids look the same as 2023 and the wedding is simply "a good place" he was taken to. Where's the evidence showing a future year?
Answer: We know significant time has passed, because Michael's hair turns fully gray. The exact number of years is unknown.
Harry's Fifteen Minutes - S8-E22
Question: How was Harry able to fake being sick? When his temperature was taken, the thermometer read one hundred and three. Even his sneezing and weak voice sounded real.
Answer: He swapped his thermometer with one hidden in his sofa, which he'd rigged somehow. And he faked his sneezing and weak voice the same way actor Harry Anderson did: acting.
Question: In this episode, Lionel falls to his death. While still on the steps, covered with a tarp, the cop tells Lex that she needs a positive identification, so Lex must look at the dead body to confirm it's Lionel. Lionel was a well known public figure, and they obviously knew who he was well enough to get Lex to identify him. I've seen cops do this in other shows, so is it really a policy or practice to get family members to give a positive identification? Would they ever ask for it at the scene?
Answer: This is a common TV/movie trope that sets up a dramatic "reveal." It mostly streamlines the plot and eliminates the need to film an entirely separate scene. In real life, identity is handled at the morgue. A photograph of the corpse would be shown to family, a close friend, or other associate. This is done in a visitor's room and not in the lab. The family can supply photos that the coroner could compare with the body. A person's identity can be verified by other physical traits-birthmarks, scars, medical conditions, etc. In extreme cases, DNA testing would be used.
Question: How can their house still be standing in 2004 when it was destroyed in 1994? Even if they rebuilt it it wouldn't look s old, it would only be a few years old.
Answer: In one of the flashbacks, it is shown that the wife designed the house and had been thinking about it for a long time. I think the easiest answer to this is: the house was simply rebuilt the same as it was.
Answer: My understanding was the timeline had been reset in such a way that the explosion had never happened.
Except that the explosion did happen. When Max carries Melissa out of the house to prevent her death again, their house is exploding in the background. This is because McComb had placed a bomb in the house to ensure that the explosion would kill Max which of course had ultimately failed.
The explosion happened, but it was before Max returned to his own time in the future. Once he went back through the time portal, everything somehow reset itself to before the bomb being detonated. The previous events in the past were erased in favor of an alternate timeline. The movie does not attempt to give a logical explanation, and it makes no sense, as most time-travel stories never do, but a "suspension of disbelief" is employed here. We're supposed to accept that it happened. Max is the only character who knows what the previous timeline was like, but he now has no idea of current events (like his wife and son being alive) in his alternate life during the intervening time from when he was in the past and returns to the "new" present.
Question: What was with the ending? He melts down to a regular looking boy when in the original he was shown as deformed. I hate this ending, consider it the weakest and worst of the franchise.
Answer: The side effects of being washed away with toxic waste?
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: Definitely just for the sake of good TV; in reality, this would be instant death (or at least, very soon after, and no way one could just get up and walk). There's a featurette on the production of this scene, and Vince Gilligan addresses the liberties taken with reality here. He felt that since Gus was such an iconic character, he deserved an equally iconic death, hence the calm, cool, collected way he walks out of the room with half a face. Gilligan said he also wanted to briefly fake the audience out, as we see Gus walk out from his "unaffected" side first and assume he somehow survived the blast.