Question: When the sorting hat is speaking, can all children hear it, or only the one who is beneath it? I ask this because when the hat shouts 'Gryffindor!' everyone in the hall seems to hear it.
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 Harry buys his wand at Olivander's store, Olivander says 'well, give it a wave'. How come Harry already knows how to use the wand?
Chosen answer: He doesn't know how to use a wand at all. Ollivander told Harry to give the wand wave to test it, and the wand is reacting a bit uncontrollably because Harry does not know how to use it properly and also because that particular wand is not suitable for him. When Harry tries the wand that he eventually buys, it is reacting favorably because it is choosing Harry to be its master.
Question: When Lucky Day tripped and lost the race, was that actually an accident or was that part of the race being rigged? Like a fighter taking a fall.
Chosen answer: There is nothing that indicates the race was rigged. it was likely an accident.
Question: When the woman is talking to her daughter on her cell phone, we hear the woman on the other end of the line say something like, "I see in calculus". Does this have any deeper meaning in the movie? Most people we see that are affected act strange, but none talk of seeing things.
Answer: In the movie the plants are releasing chemicals into the air that sends a self destruct sequence to the humans. Some plants have hallucinogenic capabilities. It is possible that the girl who sees in calculus had been the victim of just such a plant causing her to see things that aren't really there.
Question: While doing the kata, the only time Daniel moves his feet is when he turns during the kata. He never moves towards Barnes. At one point, Barnes tries to moves towards Daniel but stops when Daniel starts the kata. It is finally Barnes who moves towards Daniel, not the other way around. Would it be legal for Daniel to distract Barnes with kata in the middle of a tournament, as he's not moving towards Barnes at any time?
Chosen answer: Yes, it is legal. As long as a competitor is in motion the match continues. Had Daniel stayed in his upright "ready stance", he would have been dq'd for match delay.
Question: In the scene where Carnegie and his men were looking for Eli and Solara while they were sleeping, Solara tried looking through Eli's bag to see the book. When she opens the bag you could see the book with the name "The Book of Eli" on it. Later when Carnegie steals the book from Eli there is just a cross on the book, not the book Solara saw in his bag. Why wasn't it the same book?
Chosen answer: It was a name tag and was attached to his backpack, not part of the book.
When he opened the backpack there was a patch saying "Hello, my name is Eli" which made me wonder if he was blind and had been a braille student or teacher. Also, he seems to always check where the sun is for direction but a totally blind person could easily lose the ability to discern west from east or day from night. I simply can't believe that a blind man could fight like he can. I love the movie and have watched it several times and each time I'm looking for hints.
Question: In the TGRI lab, when the Professor is disposing of the Ooze, he places it in a weird looking machine. It has a pyramid like structure with what appears to be a rock of some sort in the center. What is that machine and what is that rock? If it even is a rock? (00:23:05)
Chosen answer: The machine dispose of the ooze. How exactly is not expressed in the film.
Question: In the scene where Mrs Loren appears at the window of Nora's room. Since Mrs Loren and the doctor are faking Mrs. Loren's death and apparition, how did they manage to make the rope go round her feet? Also how did Mrs Loren glide in and out?
Chosen answer: As far as the "gliding in and out", Mrs Loren presumably uses the same body harness she used to fake her hanging. As to the rope... the film is deliberately ambiguous on whether or not the ghosts are real, as evinced by the drunk's last line in the movie; the rope trick is probably supposed to reflect this ambiguity despite being Mrs Loren's trickery.
Question: Why does Swagger include 5 tennis balls on the list of medical supplies he hands to Sarah?
Answer: If you cut a slit into them and squeeze when the ball expands back it creates suction. So they could have been used to clear away any blood or pus when cleaning the wound before stitching.
Question: When nomads shoot the person and he is dying, he says something in the ears of Mr. Towns and Mr. Towns reacts with bad expressions. This is never revealed later in the movie. What possibly could he have said in the ears of Mr. Towns?
Answer: Later on in the movie before they get ready to take off, Mr. Towns is asked that same question and his reply was he said "don't crash" to Mr. Towns.
Question: Throughout the film, are there a series of deliberate 'Back to the Future' references? I noticed two straight away - Daniel says 'If you put your mind to it anything is possible, you can do anything' which is repeated several times during BTTF. Also, when Daniel and Kumiko are at the dance, the song 'Earth Angel' can be heard. The song at the climax of the dance in BTTF. Are these deliberate, as BTTF was a year before this movie?
Chosen answer: No it is not deliberate. what Daniel says is a common saying, and Earth Angel was a popular song. coincidence at best.
Answer: Also, Daniel's "put your mind to it you can accomplish anything" (before painting the fence) was used in the first film from 1984 - a year BEFORE Back to the Future came out.
Question: What would happen if William would stand on the other side of the cage? Then needles wouldn't stuck into him. Needles would hit the cage and start sprinkle acid in direction of mother and son, most likely hurting them. We learn from previous movies that Jigsaw planned his traps very carefully ,so he wouldn't allow that mother and son would hurt in any case.
Chosen answer: The trap wouldn't have worked if William stood on the other side of the cage. When William walks towards the mother and son, you see a closeup of his feet stepping onto a pressure-pad that activates the trap. If William stood on the other side of the cage, the trap would never have turned on because the pressure-pad would not have been set off, and nobody would have died. Also, even though Jigsaw pre-plans his traps, there certainly are circumstances where the mother and son could have gotten hurt. One must remember, Jigsaw is insane, and it's shown repeatedly in the series that even though he intends to help people, he is not above sacrificing people or putting innocent people in harm's way to teach his subjects a lesson. (The most prominent examples being the mother and daughter from the original film and Joyce from "Saw 3D" who were innocent but placed in direct danger to be a motivation for the subjects).
Question: While in the small boat at Whitecap Bay, why did the mermaids attack most of the sailors but left Philip alone?
Answer: They didn't "leave him alone." The mermaids were in the midst of attacking all the men in the boat when Blackbeard had his crew on shore set off the explosions. That caused the mermaids to panic, tipping the boat over and dumping the surviving men, including Philip, into the sea. Serena, the mermaid Philip falls in love with, was apparently attracted to him and she pushed him out of danger. During the confusion, Philip made it back to shore. The mermaids were still attacking everyone on shore, and that is when Serena became trapped by some falling debris.
Question: Is this the last movie to be shot, edited and finished on film?
Answer: It's a bit difficult to find out this sort of information as not all films released disclose what they use to edit on. Michael Kahn is perhaps the most famous editor around to edit on flatbed machines and switched to digital editing for time constraints. Many film schools still teach and use flatbed editing so you may still see short films edited on film, just not feature length movies for a variety of reasons.
Itchy and Scratchy: The Movie - S4-E6
Question: Homer bans Bart from ever watching "The Itchy And Scratchy Movie". But what exactly is the audience meant to think about this? Is the audience meant to think Homer did the right thing or Homer did a severe thing and the audience wants Bart to watch The Itchy And Scratchy Movie?
Chosen answer: Like many great episodes of the Simpsons, this one does not give us a good or bad guy. Rather, it's examining a family dynamic; parents want to protect their children, children want to prove their maturity. Just like in real life, no one is being especially unreasonable, they're just butting heads by each trying to do what they think is best.
Question: After Laura and Steve leave to go out of town, Nicole calls David to come over. He's in the car with Logan and during this scene, while talking to Nicole, he's rubbing something in his lap, under his arm. What is he rubbing? Is it someone's head or his knee?
Answer: I always thought it was a girl giving him a blow job.
Me too! I've seen it more than once and it's not until I'm watching it just now that it shows up as a dog, I could have sworn it was a girl.
Answer: He is petting a dog that's sitting on his lap.
Question: I've always wondered, but what is the scene about at the beginning of the film before the titles? Is it just there to showcase the team or is there another reason?
Chosen answer: It's an excuse to show off the team, as well as the reason they are already in Eastern Europe.
Question: Why wasn't Johnny disqualified for his own "illegal contact to the knee" like Bobby was? We know the ref saw it happen because he gave Johnny a warning. Never made sense to me.
Answer: The answer makes no sense since Johnny caught the leg and purposely rams the elbow into the back of the knee. There was no accident about it. Even the ref acknowledged this.
Chosen answer: Johnny attacked an illegal area which the rules accept may happen accidentally and so they have provisions for warnings and such in light of that possibility, whereas Bobby performed an illegal technique which cannot happen accidentally, and therefore the rules call for immediate disqualification.
That wasn't an accident; Johnny deliberately elbowed the back of the knee. But having him disqualified would be a terrible ending to a great film. The warning was for plot reasons.
Answer: The movie never explains this and it always seemed like an error to me. I've always reconciled it by saying that a flying kick to an opponents knee is considered so egregious it warrants an instant disqualification, while an elbow to the knee only draws a warning. Once again, the movie never actually says this so it's only speculation but it does make some sort of sense if you think about it.
Answer: I always took it to mean that the kick Bobby did actually put Daniel in a position where he was unable to continue, and that it was a definite attempt at maliciousness (at least in the referee's eyes), whereas Johnny's attack might have simply been an accident. Look when Bobby kicked Daniel's knee-the fight just started, and it wasn't an accident. When Johnny connected (Up to this point Johnny fought fairly and within the rules) they were in the middle of a match, and Johnny simply hit him illegally without intending to. When I used to train and fight in tournaments, I once got punched across the jaw by an opponent who got a warning. When he did it a second time a few seconds later, he was disqualified. It wasn't something that appeared malicious, it was just in the heat of the moment of the fight. Bobby's act wasn't, which is why he got disqualified. Johnny could have been in the heat of the moment, which is why he only got a warning. If he hit the knee again, he would have been disqualified.
Question: In the office scene where Mike and Olin are speaking of all the deaths that have occurred in room 1408 they say a specific number for each type of death. I added all the numbers up and got 43 but Olin said there had been 56 deaths total. Is my addition wrong or was is it a coincidence that there were 13 deaths they didn't speak of?
Answer: After they recite the types of deaths and the number attributed to each one Mr. Olin also says that there have also been natural causes of death as well which surprises Mike. The natural causes of death add up to the other 13 deaths.
First, I don't have a great memory - I had to re-watch the movie, writing down the numbers: 7 jumpers, 4 overdoses, 5 hangings, 3 mutilations, 2 strangulation's plus 22 natural deaths - I get 43 total, but later we hear of a man that drowned in his chicken soup... which fits none of the categories mentioned including natural. There is also mention of heart attacks, which I don't know if you would categorizes these as natural considering the circumstances. That is to say, they just didn't detail all 56 deaths. The book might, and mind you a book made into a movie is always too fast paced with so much detail crammed into 2 hours... there is really no time to digest all the material. I'm guessing this is a much better read. Also this movie PRE-supposes that a person understands a lot of things... I had to look the stuff up after the first viewing... then came to this site (as a means of looking some stuff up). Here's my low down - after the fast forward second viewing, literally taking notes: 1. The room is not haunted - something in the room is evil; this is stated when the hotel owner has conversations with writer just outside of the office on route to the elevator 2. The writer expresses this is : the seventh circle - the 7th circle is where those that committed the following violations are punished: a. Crimes against neighbours b. crimes against self >suicide c. Crimes against God, Art (grand daughter of God) and nature 3. The writer has pleaded Guilty as charged in the hotel managers office to charges of: believing in nothing (this would be God - and he states so later) and believing in no-one but himself 4. The writer opens the bible - and the page falls to Nathans Parable -2 Samuel 12 ==> had to look this one up - this is about being judged - mostly about a man who kills another and takes his wife - it's about judging yourself and paying for your sins. In this story the wife brings forth a child that god strikes down with sickness and the child dies... among other things. 5. It is generally believed that there are 3 things that allow for better mind control - or mind opening/bending experiences: a. Sugar b. Alcohol c. Drugs ==> he was given a bottle of alcohol which he consumes as well as chocolate squares on the bed - presumably the evil force has provided these to allow better mind control 6. All the pictures show some form of evil: the Schooner lost at sea, should we presume an act of evil in addition to potential future acts of cannibalism? The Hunt: which is where I believe the hotel owner originated from: escaping from a pore in the picture - he was the hunted (no glass covering on the picture) and he provided the alcohol - he also tries to stop the writer from taking the room, saying he doesn't have to do this (punish himself) and/or the manager senses the end of the room and potentially his existence Lastly the old women reading to the three children... I just can't make this one fit...which is actually when I started to review the relevance to evil there. The writer says the children are deranged...? 7. The demons all originate from the pictures - I think; the manager of the hotel, the knife wielding woman (schooner) . I'm unsure about the guy in the vent. That is to say, the pictures have brought the evil to the room; and the room has become a room where those who should be punished in the 7th circle are. 8. To prove the punishment room theory: in the file folder, as the writer approaches the room 408 - the notes indicate a man with the notation that: his brother was eaten by wolves on the Connecticut Turnpike - I'm guessing there was an act of cannibalism there. 9. Further to prove the punishment room theory - acts against art are really usury and charging interest (loan shark style - high rates to those that are desperate) - we see a business man jump - which later appears to be the man from the newspaper article that says: Dec. 06, 1938 Chicago factory owner leaps from bridge - stating Financial issues Ultimately this room is about judging yourself, deciding your own punishment and the evil forces dispensing the punishment. Think about the maid that only blinds herself with scissors, and the writer who has presumably already paid for most of his sins (daughter dies) but is still forced to suffer heat, cold, drowning, mental illness, isolation etc.
Answer: Olin simply did not list all of the causes/cases. He mentions the causes of 21 deaths before Mike cuts him off. He then mentions the 22 natural death cases. By no coincidence, the number of cases mentioned, 43, subtracted from the number of deaths Olin says actually occurred, 56, is 13. Afterwards, he reveals one more cause attributed to the unmentioned 13 deaths: drowning.
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: In the book, the only words the hat said out loud for everyone were the house assignments. Everything else was said telepathically with the one wearing the hat. In the movie, since we can see the hat's mouth moving the whole time, we're led to believe that everything is spoken out loud.
Garlonuss ★