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.

Answer: Pixar movies typically carry trivia about their next project and "A Bug's Life" was supposed to be released after Toy Story 2. As it turns out, "A Bug's Life" was released in 1998, Toy Story 2 in 1999.

MovieFan612

Question: With so many bank accounts under a phony name, where were all the monthly bank statements going?

mrfrede

Answer: Bank statements weren't mailed as they were in more recent times. In those days, when you went to the bank, a passbook or ledger was updated and provided to you. Remember, in those times everything was hand-written and manually recorded. Statements weren't created automatically and mass-mailed.

Chosen answer: Possibly post office boxes, or maybe even to the prison directly.

Captain Defenestrator

Question: In the scene where the detective tells Susie's parents 'they found blood, lots of blood', how can they find blood if Susie's body was placed inside a locker?

Loesjuh1985

Chosen answer: Because he likely killed her in such a way that caused severe bleeding, and was before he moved the body and hid it in the safe.

raywest

Question: Is the golden head treasure in the cave at the beginning of Raiders the same one used in Jim Carrey's film The Majestic, where his scriptwriter movie has a scene in an Egyptian tomb?

Answer: Yes it is the same golden idol, and it also briefly appears in an episode of Deep Space 9 (in Jadzia Dax's quarters) and Spy Kids 2 (the treasure room). It is also seen in the video game, Blood II: The Chosen, in the third-floor museum scene.

raywest

Answer: The idol also appears on a table in Dryden Vos' office in Solo: A Star Wars Story. Interestingly, the crystal skull on top of the same table looks entirely human, and was confirmed to be a reference to a novel called Han Solo and the Lost Legacy rather than to that awful fourth Indy movie.

Question: As Banner is transforming into the Hulk and Romanoff is pinned, she says, "I swear on my life I will get you out of this..." But rather than comfort Banner, it seems that this promise is finally what sends him over the edge, prompting him to snarl the question, "Your life?" Why would Romanoff's promise affect him so much? Or am I simply over-analyzing?

Answer: It is not Romanoff's promise that sets him off. Banner is already too far gone from the attack to be comforted.

MasterOfAll

Question: This might sound stupid, but I'm just interested. When Ourumov hits Alec with the blank cartridge at the beginning, wouldn't the fact that it was shot at him from point blank cause at least some injury to Alec, like a bruise or something?

Heather Benton

Chosen answer: It was established in the lore and the game of this movie that he didn't actually shoot Alec in the head, nor did he use a blank. He simply aimed his gun to the right of Alec's head and shot the floor out of sight of Bond. He didn't use a blank.

Quantom X

Question: What is the gender of the giant dragon? Astrid refers to it as the Queen, but Hiccup calls it a he and him several times in their battle with it. The movie is not clear if the dragon is male or female, and the sites I searched about it were just as cryptic. So what is the gender of the giant dragon?

Quantom X

Chosen answer: It is never mentioned. but Astrid only used the term queen as a reference to ants' or bees' hive minds, so as it's referred to as a he every other time, we can assume it's male.

MasterOfAll

Well this was answered in the second film by Hiccup's mother. "Every nest has its Queen... but this is their king!" when she refers to the Alpha, which is a bigger and different dragon than the one in the first film. In this context, the dragon in Part 1 is a Queen, therefore female.

Quantom X

Question: In the first movie, a female pirate joined Jack's Crew who was called Anamaria. In this movie, she wasn't in the movie. Is there any explanation why she wasn't in this movie?

Blunder Bot The Mistake Machine

Chosen answer: No. Most likely Zoe Saldana, who took on larger roles after appearing in the first movie, was simply unavailable for what would only have been a minor supporting role. As for an in-universe explanation of what happened to Anamaria, none has been given.

Tailkinker

Question: The character Mr. French pours a clear liquid out of a clear bottle before using a gun to shoot through the bottle and kill a man. Leonardo watches in disbelief and Mr. French then slaps him and tells him to: "wake the f**k up!" What did Mr. French pour out on the floor? What was the point? He just pours this mysterious liquid on the carpet, shoots a guy, the walks out. Help?

Answer: Mr French just pours out lemonade. The empty bottle makes a useful, easily disposable, untraceable silencer (not a perfect one but good enough). Leo is shocked because he thought they were just going to rough the guy up, whilst French was always intending to kill the man, also this is the first murder that Leo has witnessed (that we know of).

The bottle doesn't silence the round so much as suppress the volume, a gunshot can be heard a long way away. The bottle stops it being heard five streets away. It's also a common thing for criminals who are firing bare handed at a target they know will go down in one shot to prevent powder staining on the hand holding the gun.

Question: On Disney Wiki, there is a suggestion that Felix had fixed Calhoun's broken heart. Did he do that by kissing her cheek, or how else did he do it?

Answer: He fixed her heart by showing her love again, but this time with a happy ending. Her back story was made so that her previous lover was eaten and killed on their wedding day. Felix is supposedly able to fix anything - not necessarily just with his special hammer. He fixed her heart with himself. He gave her a new back story.

Quantom X

Question: Has anyone figured out the significance of Helen's name? Each of the Pars have a name that relate to their powers but I can't think of Helen's connection. Bob: BoB, or Best of the Best; Violet: ultraviolet rays, outside the visible spectrum; Dash (as in running around); Jack-Jack: Jack of all Trades (his multiple powers); possibly also Syndrome; his "syndrome" is hero worship/envy.

Teru_Kage

Chosen answer: There is no connection. And let's be honest here, Bob supposedly meaning "Best of the best" is so hopelessly tenuous as to be meaningless as any sort of correlation to his abilities. While the three children, yes, do have names that correspond to their powers in some way, their parents do not.

Tailkinker

Question: Why didn't Jack let Will die? If Barbossa and Jack could have come back from the dead why not Will? That way Jack could have stabbed the heart himself.

Answer: Because, as stated in the film, Jack wasn't dead: He was taken to Davy Jones' locker and he needed to be rescued. As for Barbossa, Tia Dalma was the only one who could "resurrect" someone, and she's freed from her human bonds, so she's out of the picture. And in any case, it's far more dramatic for Jack to give up his chance at immortality to save Will's life.

Brad

Question: What was the point of Jamal explaining the cost of pani puri? Did he really not know the answer to the simple question?

Answer: I believe it was to demonstrate that as a "slumdog" he knew some things but not others. He obviously did not know the answer to the question asked on the game show that the police chief asks him about, so to defend himself, he proves that he DOES know some things: just things that not everyone knows.

Brad

Question: I have seen this movie several times, but I have never quite understood the scene where Tom and Daisy's daughter meets Gatsby, Nick, and Jordan (before the group decides to go into town). Gatsby is obviously very shocked at the sight of the child, judging by the way he stares at her. However, it seems that he would have known about her after keeping up on rumors and stories about Daisy for years. Can anyone add any insight or thoughts to the significance of this scene?

Answer: I would say Gatsby knew about the child but suddenly realised she had a life without him and that she loved her children so her leaving was not going to be as easy as he imagined. Gatsby sees both Daisy and Tom in this scene being loving parents (for a minute or so) and it was hard to witness.

Answer: It's not known if Gatsby knew about Daisy's daughter (Pammy) prior to his seeing Daisy again. Gatsby was deeply in love with Daisy before she married Tom, but in reality, she was no longer the girl Gatsby thought he knew. She has become shallow, materialistic, self-centered, and oblivious to much of what goes on around her. Gatsby may be seeing in Pammy how he remembered Daisy once was, innocent and unspoiled. Pammy may or may not become like her mother, depending on how she is raised.

raywest

I think he is being wilfully ignorant. He wants to believe that Daisy will walk away from Tom any day now. But the child is a symbol of her marriage to Tom. A result of the life that she built with Tom after she chose to marry him.

Answer: In the book, Nick - as narrator - guesses that Gatsby never "really believed" that the child existed until this scene. I view the girl as a symbol of Daisy's life with Tom. Gatsby wants to believe that Daisy will quickly leave Tom and go away with him, but the sight of Pammy is making him face reality. Daisy comes from a wealthy background, married another wealthy person, and wants Pammy to enjoy a secure, wealthy lifestyle.

Question: Is this is a mistake in the book or just a blooper in the film? In the movie Deathly Hallows Part 1 Harry doesn't ever disarm Malfoy he simply snatches the wand. Does that mean Harry is still the owner of the elder wand? Another thing I noticed is in Deathly Hallow Part 2, Hermione disarms Malfoy in the room of requirement after which Harry saves Malfoy and never disarms him again! So doesn't that mean that the Elder wand belongs to Hermione now? I haven't read the books so I'm a bit confused. This might be a stupid question for a few of you'll but I really want to understand this, as every time I see the movie I research on it and never get an answer that really explains or satisfies me, especially about when Hermione disarms Malfoy in the Room of Requirement!

nirali_shah91

Chosen answer: The Elder Wand responds to power, thus, should a wizard defeat its owner (by killing them, capturing them, disarming them or whatever other method), it will transfer its loyalty to them. During the first of the two Deathly Hallows movies, Harry takes Draco's wand away from him, thus defeating him to the satisfaction of the Elder Wand, which transfers its loyalty to him from that point on. Hermione defeating Malfoy in the second movie makes no difference to the Wand, as it has already moved on to a new master.

Tailkinker

Answer: When Hermione disarms Malfoy in the room of requirement, Malfoy was using his mother's wand at that time. So Hermione disarming Malfoy makes no difference to the ownership of the elder wand.

To clarify, if Draco had (unknowingly) still been the Elder Wand's master when Hermione disarmed him, even though he was using his mother's wand, the Elder Wand could have transferred its loyalty to her. That is what happened with Harry. He grabbed Draco's own wand from him, even though Voldemort physically possessed the Elder Wand. Also, Draco's wand appears to have switched its allegiance to Harry, as he found it responded quite well to his commands. Draco never knew he commanded the Elder Wand, and he never physically possessed it.

raywest

Question: I'm not sure if I must ask this in BTTF 1 or 2 but can anyone explain me why the mall is called 'twin pine mall' and 'lone pine mall' in the other movie?

Loesjuh1985

Chosen answer: In BTTF 1, when Marty goes back to 1955, it's revealed that there used to be a farm where the mall was located, and there were two pine trees on the farm, hence the Twin Pines Mall name. But while Marty was escaping the farmer, he runs over and kills one of the trees, thus altering the course of time and leading to the Lone Pine Mall name.

Jeff Swanson

Question: I have three questions regarding the end scene. 1. How come Jean can't crush Wolverine's body? I ask this because we can see her easily kill all people who walk too close to her. 2. Why didn't Wolverine inject Jean with the cure instead of killing her? 3. What would happen if Jean got injected with the cure?

Loesjuh1985

Chosen answer: 1) Apparently the combination of Logan's unbreakable skeleton and healing factor was enough to keep Jean from shredding him - it's possible to see his body getting damaged and repairing itself in a few shots. 2) Because, while he's capable of getting close to her mostly intact, the same isn't really true of anything he might be wearing or holding, so any cure syringe he carried with him would be destroyed. 3) Who knows? Given her extreme power level, the cure might or might not have worked, and, considering the final shot of the movie, which suggests that the cure isn't permanent anyway, her powers would likely return before long.

Tailkinker

Question: This has been killing me ever since I saw the movie. How did Harvey and Rachel get tied up in the warehouse? Who did that? Some sites say that it was Wuertz and Rameriz and that they were corrupt. But when Dent confronted both of them they said "I didn't know what they were going to do to you." What do they mean by that?

Answer: It's pretty straightforward - Wuertz and Ramirez were involved in kidnapping Harvey and Rachel and handing them over to the Joker's men, but they weren't aware that the pair would subsequently be tied up and surrounded by explosives; that was done by the Joker's henchmen.

Tailkinker

Question: What are we supposed to believe at the end of the film? Or is it deliberately left ambiguous? My mum had this theory that Pi made up the animal story to escape the reality of his ordeal. What do you think about the ending?

Answer: It's completely up to the viewer to decide. There's no right or wrong answer.

Question: I find myself confused about the money. The chip from the GT40 contains the information about Reyes' money and cash houses and that there is 100 million dollars spread throughout 10 cash houses. That would mean that there's 10 million in each house. The group decides to split it 9 ways since there's 9 of them (before counting Vince which makes 10). They burn the money from one cash house so wouldn't that mean there's only 90 million dollars left that Reyes' had locked away in the safe and put into the police station to split amongst 10 people?

Answer: Theres no telling how much money is in the safe. First, just because there are 10 safe houses, does not mean it is divided equally between them. Second, there may be more locations where his money is located that we (and the characters in the movie) are not aware of. Third, we have no idea how much money was burned at his safe house. Plus I doubt very much a man this rich and powerful would put every last dollar he has into one safe. Sure there were millions in the safe to split between them, how much though is a mystery.

Carl Missouri

It's also not known how much was in the vault to begin with before all the money was consolidated.

Answer: I think the chip they found gave a pretty accurate amount when they mentioned it was basically a schedule for deliveries and pick-ups to every safe house, and the weight of the money gave the numerical value. So give and take a certain amount, that's where Toretto comes up with one hundred and eleven split equally to Roman that has him changing his tune in about a second.

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.