Question: The answer to this might be a long shot, but I just have to ask would the passengers still on the ship when it is sinking really not notice two people (Rose and Jack) running from someone (Cal) who is shooting at them? Obviously they would have other things on their mind, but the scene wasn't as chaotic as other scenes during the sinking with the people other than the main characters.
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 Mr Warbucks goes to the orphanage to adopt Annie, he already has the adoption papers with him. But shouldn't the papers be at the orphanage since Annie was only going to be staying with him for a two weeks and he only decided that morning that he wanted to adopt her permanently?
Answer: The orphanage would certainly have adoption papers handy, but Warbucks is super-wealthy. His lawyer is undoubtedly quite used to procuring legal documents for Warbucks on a moment's notice. It just seemed the fastest way to go about it to him: have the paperwork as filled out and ready to go before he ever got there so all he'd need was Hannigan's signature, as pointed out in the song "Sign".
Question: When the friends gang can't get in or out of Monica's apartment because they have locked the keys in or out why couldn't the other gang members let them borrow theirs? In the last ever episode it shows them having a key each.
Chosen answer: That doesn't mean they all had keys before the final episode. The lockout incident happened earlier in the series when Rachel was still living with Monica. It could be that after they got locked out, the girls decided everyone should have a key to their apartment to avoid another similar dilemma.
Question: Since this movie is a sequel to An American Werewolf in London, how come none of the werewolves look like the one David Kessler turned into?
Answer: Because they're two different films made years apart (1981 and 1997) by two different directors. Not only had CGI effects made significant advances by the time "Werewolf in Paris" was made, but every filmmaker has their own vision and style for their movie. A new director often feels no obligation to make a sequel look exactly like its predecessor. Look at the Harry Potter series. There have been different directors, and each made changes to how characters and locations look from film-to-film. It's just a natural progression.
Question: In Half-Blood Prince, Draco disarms Dumbledore at the top of the Astronomy tower. He disarms the wand revealed to be the Elder Wand. Therefore Malfoy IS the new master of the wand. In Malfoy Manor in DH1 Harry disarms Draco's OWN wand, not the Elder Wand. Why then does Harry automatically become the new master of a wand he did not "win" from its previous owner? Is it because he is now the owner of Malfoy's wand, the wand that "won" Dumbledore's, and therefore the wand believes Harry disarmed Dumbledore?
Answer: The Elder Wand's master does not have to actually be holding the wand to lose its allegiance. If its owner is overpowered in some way, then he can lose possession of the wand. Wands are sentient, and the Elder Wand is the most powerful wand in the wizard world. When Harry disarmed Draco, even though the Elder Wand was never in Draco's physical possession, the wand sensed this and changed its allegiance to Harry.
The One With The Flashback - S3-E6
Question: In the cold open, Janice asks who's done it with who. How come Ross and Rachel aren't saying anything and why, in a deleted line in that same scene, does Rachel says something like, "If you don't put out I'll dump you for someone who does" to Ross? Ross and Rachel have had sex numerous times prior to this episode so is the whole joke that Rachel's being sarcastic?
Chosen answer: Everyone, including Janice, already knows that Ross and Rachel, having been a couple, has "done it," so there's no reason for them to say anything, hence why Rachel makes that joke. Janice's question is meant to find out who, other than those two, have had a sexual encounter with each other. Janice is still directing the question to Rachel and Ross, but she wants to know if either of them has done it, or almost done it, with any of the other friends.
Question: Is there a fish visible in the "Where's the fish?" segment, or is it just a joke?
Answer: There is no fish in the scene.
Question: There was a deleted scene with the Ingen hunters running off a cliff and hang gliding that get attacked by pteranodons. Does anyone know where I can find that scene? I've looked on YouTube and almost everywhere and I can't find it.
Chosen answer: It was never filmed. The 'deleted scene' you are referring to was actually a series of sketches to be used as pre-vis.
Question: In the scene where the crew exits the ship via the retractable doorway and gets seen by the garbage men, they had enough power to beam out but decided to walk out regardless, and risk being seen. Yet every other time they beamed in and out of the ship, so why not that particular time? Furthermore, why would the garbage men dismiss it so easily and not report it or return again later.
Chosen answer: There's no reason given, but it might have something to do with the fact that all of them are leaving the ship at the same time. It may be necessary for someone to remain on board to beam them in and out, as opposed to manually opening and closing the hatch from the outside. Being as this is a Klingon ship, the technology does not exactly work the same as their own. As to the garbage collectors, they did not report seeing anything for fear of no one believing them, being ridiculed, and possibly losing their jobs. They may also simply not believe what they are seeing.
Question: Can someone explain to me what exactly was the explanation for the Superman logo projectile that he throws off his chest towards the end? that just seemed like an incredible plot hole and totally unexplainable as Superman's suit is never shown to have any powers in this film series.
Chosen answer: It's not a plot hole. It's just a power we've never seen before or since. However, in the history of Superman (like in the old TV show and such) it's a common thing for Superman to suddenly have a power we'd never been told about then never see again. It's weak story telling, but it's not a plot hole.
Answer: The cellophane S is not a power of Superman's. It was created by the technology in the fortress of solitude. The same goes for the holograms.
Question: This just interests me, but when Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire, and he has to go and join the champions, why is Dumbledore angry with him? There's no way Harry could have submitted his own name because he's not of age yet, and he is not educated enough to over-ride Dumbledore's Age-Line spell or fool the Goblet into accepting him, and there's no way Hermione would have helped him because she's too moral about using magic for the wrong reasons; Dumbledore should know both these things already if he is such an intelligent and knowledgeable wizard.
Answer: Quite simply, the first assumption anyone would have would be that, however the name got in there, it was because Harry wanted to circumvent the restriction. That's why, when Dumbledore comes back to see him a minute later, the first thing he did was grill Harry about how the name got in there. Harry hardly has a flawless record where school rules are concerned, and even Ron assumed he'd done it somehow.
Question: In the bank, inside the lift, when John McClane is with the fake Detective Otto, what does he see in Detective Otto's badge that convinces him he is fake?
Chosen answer: He sees the reflection of his friend's badge number that he remembered from their conversation about the lottery earlier, so knows the badge was taken from his dead friend.
Question: In the epilogue, whose trolley is Harrys daughter riding on before they go through the 9 3/4 passage?
Question: How did Draco Malfoy get the Elder Wand at the end of book 7?
Answer: Draco never physically possessed the Elder Wand, nor did he ever know he was briefly its master. Draco unintentionally won the Elder Wand's allegiance when he confronted and then disarmed Dumbledore when they were atop the Astronomy Tower in "The Half-Blood Prince. When the wand was forcefully removed from Dumbledore's hand, it sensed that its master (Dumbledore) had been defeated and switched its loyalty. Even if Dumbledore had lived and still retained custody of the wand, he would have no longer have been its true master. When Harry later disarmed Draco at Malfoy Manor, the Elder Wand then became Harry's property, even though the wand was still in Dumbledore's tomb at that time.
Question: What did Doc mean when he said "It's not revenge he's after. It's the reckoning"?
Chosen answer: A reckoning is like a judgment day, exacting retribution for one's actions. Doc was very well educated and had a very large vocabulary. He was correctly pointing out the subtle difference between revenge (to make Wyatt feel better about losing Morgan and about Virgil's crippling injury) and the fact that Wyatt was bringing about a judgment day (or reckoning) for each of the men who hurt his family.
Answer: I've spent a lot of time thinking about this very question, and here's what I've come up with. I think there are at least two differences between revenge and a reckoning. First, I think it has to do with the scale of the response to an offending action. Revenge, in my mind, is an eye for an eye, i.e, "You killed my brother and wounded another, so I will inflict the same action on your family (or group, gang, whatever). " A reckoning is less a measured response to an offending action and more of a full-scale punishment, i.e, "You killed my brother and wounded another, so I will now slaughter your entire family-including those who were not directly responsible for the offending action." Second, I think there is also a difference in motivation. Revenge tends to be a very personal response to something, whereas a reckoning tends to be more of a response fueled by a need for justice. In Wyatt's case, it was both. He was enraged by what happened to his family, but was also a lawman.
Thank you for this response! I've only seen Tombstone a million times and asked the same question every time. It's hard to separate the difference between the two but I believe you nailed it. Well done.
I'm thinking the opposite in terms. Revenge is "Reflexive" and is generally any means necessary (out of an abundance of pain or rage) to hurt the other party. "Revenge is a dish best served cold." If one is exacting justice there's no need to be cold hearted. Therefore, Reckoning is (to me) a fair balancing of the "scales" hence "an eye for an eye." Not only consequences of actions as it were but a corrective action to an incorrect circumstance. Just my understanding.
The problem with that theory is there is no difference in the end because the end result was the same...the killing. True reckoning could have only been achieved though the apprehension and punishment by trial and jury, anything other than that is simply revenge.
Question: What is the purpose of the boots on the rafters in the scene where they find the first murdered priest?
Answer: A suspense point. Just to make the audience think that the predator is up there.
Trials and Tribble-ations - S5-E6
Question: Wouldn't Sisko have created a paradox by identifying himself by his real name to James T. Kirk before returning to the future?
Chosen answer: No. He's given his name, that's all. Nothing there that might lead to a paradox. If he's gone into detail about his time travelling, that might cause an issue or two, but simply stating his name does nothing.
Answer: No more so than Sisko posing for a photo in the 21st century while pretending to be Gabriel Bell.
Answer: His last name is something Kirk will forget, since he was on temporary assignment and essentially passing through.
Question: Is there any particular reason as to why Lisbeth is dressed like a punk in the courtroom?
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: There's no definitive answer to this. Even though it may have seemed less chaotic than the later scenes, considering the extreme crisis and terror that was unfolding at that moment, and knowing their their lives are at stake, it is conceivable that others would not take much notice of what people were doing, or even if they did, would not be inclined to intervene.
raywest ★