Question: Since I didn't notice it for a long time, I wanna make sure I'm right about this, so am I seeing a real tear roll down Hermione's face as she and everyone claps for Hagrid at the end?
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: Why did Tom-Tom/Lucy have a nose job? Their nose was basically the same (and pretty as well). And why do people call her Tom-Tom?
Answer: Near the start, when Tom-Tom holds up her school photo packet, her real name Lucy Thompson is on the packet (there's a sticker at the right side of the photo with Lucy's name sideways, and Jenna's photo packet also has a sideways sticker with her own name). So the nickname Tom-Tom may stem from Thompson, though we're not told why or when that nickname even started. Within the movie we're also not given the outright reason for her nose job. If she became self-conscious about her nose, regardless if others thought it was a "pretty" nose, she opted to have rhinoplasty to alter the shape, even in a small way.
I just looked at that scene, and her name isn't on the packet. It has "Tamarack" in big letters at the top, in between two 1987s, but it says the same thing on Jenna's, which I'm presuming is the name of the school. So that can't be it.
Look again. Both Jenna's and Lucy's packets have their names on stickers at the right side of their photos. On Jenna's it reads "RINK, Jenna 03-88743" (we see it when Jenna picks up her photo packet from the table), and on Lucy's packet it reads "THOMPSON, Lucy 04-22578."
Answer: I think the "Tom-Tom" and nose job details were just bad writing. She says, "No one's called me that since I had my nose job." Thompson is not an unusual last name, but I've never heard of anyone being called "Tom-Tom" because of it. And it sounds like the nickname is connected to her nose, even if it's not supposed to be. Just not good writing. Maybe someone based this on an "inside joke"/private joke, not realizing that a mass audience might not understand it.
Wham, Bam, Thank You, Mammy - S6-E5
Question: According to this episode, Mammy Watkins and Blanche's father were in love for 50 years. And they would have been married "in another time and place." However, Blanche's father married a different woman in Season Two ("Big Daddy's Little Lady"). Why would he not have married Mammy Watkins after Blanche's mother died?
Answer: Because a lot of people, especially in the southern US, simply would not have accepted an interracial marriage. Depending when Blanche's mother died, it might not have even been legal at the time; the last anti-miscegenation laws in their home state of Georgia were struck down in 1967.
The episode "Mother's Day" shows Blanche visiting her mother, who is age 89, and Blanche does not look any younger than she does in the present. Apparently her mother died in the late 70s or the 80s. However, I live in the southern US. Even now, in 2023, there are still many people who would object to an interracial marriage. Another factor could be guilt; maybe Blanche's father felt too guilty to marry Mammy Watkins after betraying Blanche's mother for so long.
That is a good point. Marrying someone he's known for years...tongues would wag. 'How long was THAT going on?'.
Answer: My interpretation is that Blanche's father didn't feel quite the same way about the relationship. Blanche only has Mammie's word that they "would have been married" in another life. I've heard of situations where a person had a longtime affair with someone, but refused to leave their spouse, for whatever reason (maybe finances and reputation/image in their community). This actually happens to Dorothy in another episode: she dates a married man who wants a secret relationship with her, while keeping his marriage because it's predictable and safe.
Question: Does anyone know the name of the actress that plays Thaddeus (the dog's) Mom on season 6's "Computer Terror?" I don't think I've seen her anywhere else. I looked it up on IMDb and it's not listed (uncredited). I even tried google but no luck. Also, does anyone know the name of the actor who played her husband? He does look familiar, but can't place him.
Answer: The husband, Wilbur, is actor Frank Aletter. The wife, Marion, is played by Sandy Balson.
Question: Excluding plot device, when Lanie goes to see Prophet Jack a second time, why didn't she simply ask him how she was going to die?
Question: At the beginning, Jill tells the police that she believes the caller is watching her through the windows. Since he calls her, how is this possible since cell phones did not exist at the time this movie came out?
Answer: Sorry, editing my answer because I misunderstood the question. The caller is using a different phone line in the same house. It's possible to have multiple different landlines/phone-numbers in the same building. However, Jill doesn't realise this and probably assumes he's watching her from a different house using binoculars or something similar.
Question: In this film we see what happens to Dr Gordon after Saw. Were these shots filmed in 2003 when Saw was filmed, or were they filmed in 2010 with this film?
Chosen answer: They were filmed in 2010 for this film. When the original film was made, it was intended to be a one-and-done, direct-to-video movie. They didn't know that there would be more than a half-dozen sequels and that Dr. Gordon would be revealed as a mastermind all along, so they'd have no reason to film such scenes. A sequel wasn't even announced until the original film tested well during festival screenings, was given a theatrical release and became a big hit. You can also kind of tell because the first film and this film were shot on different mediums (film and digital) and have a different aesthetic, and the first film also didn't have the budget for some of the digital effects used in those scenes (such as digitally removing Gordon's food).
Question: The whole basis of the film is that Max is suddenly aware of hidden evidence that impacted his sentencing. However, his lawyer claims he wouldn't have known and hurried the case to keep it hidden. The question remains: how did Max find out about the evidence while in prison?
Answer: As I remember it, Sam Bowden, Max's lawyer, knew his client was a rapist. He did not want Max to go free, so he buried the evidence that could have exonerated him. At that time, Max was illiterate, and Bowden assumed he'd never know about the hidden information. While in prison, Max, who was actually highly intelligent, learned how to read and also studied law. He later mounted his own unsuccessful appeals, which presumably gave him access to all previous evidence.
Question: After the end of the 74th Hunger Games, Haymitch and Katniss are having a conversation on a balcony and after Haymitch tells Katniss she showed them up, the camera moves to a wide shot of them and during Katniss' response, something can be seen moving inside of her dress that looks similar to a hand, but both character's hands can be seen resting on the ledge. Do you know what it is? (02:09:36)
Answer: I watched this scene multiple times on YouTube. There is definitely something moving that probably is not supposed to be seen. I'd agree with your assessment that it looks like a hand. Most likely a film crew member is crouched on the floor performing some technical function during the filming. Just what it is impossible to tell. You should submit it as a "movie mistake."
Question: Who was the person actually breastfeeding the baby (real person)? My daughter thought it was Rebecca De Mornay feeding her own biological child possibly?
Answer: Rebecca DeMornay has two children with actor/sportscaster Patrick O'Neal. She and O'Neal didn't start dating until 1996, which is long after this film was made. Therefore, that couldn't be DeMornay's own child. It was likely a new mother who was hired as a stand-in.
Question: Dylan and Jamie are sitting on the Hollywood sign discussing life. I didn't think it was possible for anyone to sit on that sign?
Answer: In real life, and since it's restoration in the late 1970s, it is illegal and impossible for anyone to climb and/or sit on the Hollywood sign. It is fenced off and electronically monitored by security 24/7.Unless they found a way to bypass the security, this is movie fiction.
But the question is how they managed to sit on that sign and not how they managed to get in.
As to "how they managed to sit on that sign," in the past, others have climbed and sat on different letters of the sign. Each of the steel corrugated panel letters is attached to vertical steel girder structures, which have multiple horizontal bracing steel beams attached behind the letters. Every individual letter also has 2 to 3 steel ladders behind the steel panels. Jamie and Dylan climbed up to the lower inner part of the second "O," and both of them sat on one of the horizontal steel beams that has a depth of 8 inches, enough room to accommodate them sitting.
Question: When the kidnappers leave the barn after putting Amy in the freezer, why doesn't Jeff try harder to pull the latch off the door and free his wife? If I were in his situation, I would be desperate to free her and run away so we could call police. He tries a few times to pry the bar off, but eventually gives up and runs into the house. This doesn't seem to be a very wise strategy to adopt.
Question: Why is this movie called "Airport"? It is not really a sequel to the original Airport, as Patroni is the only character in both films. Further, the original Airport focused on airport operations. It gave us glimpses of various airport professionals and how they respond to challenges and controversies. That was its appeal. But beyond showing the mobile lounge at Dulles, and it doesn't even introduce us to the pilot, Airport 75 has nothing to do with any airport.
Answer: It's all about branding and marketing. The first Airport film was hugely successful, prompting a sequel. Reusing "Airport" in the title has built-in name recognition that people would immediately associate with the previous film, which helps sell tickets. The movie is part of what became a movie series (four in all) under the collective "Airport" name.
Question: How is it possible Comrade Phlemenkoff never suspected Anya might have been Anastasia the whole time she was at the orphanage? She obviously would've known that the Tsar and his family were killed with the exception of Anastasia, and young Anastasia just happened to be brought to the orphanage around the same time she disappeared and that she's wearing a necklace that looks like its made of gold and jewels. These would have all been major clues that she was the missing princess.
Answer: This was during the Russian Revolution. Millions of people were killed in the resulting violent turmoil, resulting in tens of thousands of children who lost or were separated from their parents. There was no reason to suspect that "Anya" was anyone important and this was a rural orphanage where mainstream news could be spotty. The necklace was likely considered costume jewelry.
Question: Is it true the cast hated Marcel the monkey that much? Would he have had more of a storyline if they didn't? Same goes for the character of Julie?
Answer: It was mostly David Schwimmer (Ross) who had issues with Marcel the monkey. He became frustrated working with an animal that often missed its mark, didn't behave properly in scenes, etc. resulting in constant retakes. As Ross was Marcel's owner, Schwimmer had the most interactions with the animal. Regarding Julie, there's no indication that any cast member had issues with Lauren Tom, the actress who played her. She was an extended guest star only intended to appear for a few episodes. Her character was simply a "complication" to Ross and Rachel finally getting together. There was no reason for Julie to remain on the show any longer.
Question: Higgins presumably knows about the ball's high standards of dress for men and women. Why then is he the only man there who is not wearing white gloves (which are routine for such occasions)?
Question: Hermione was the one who said that when a werewolf transforms he'd kill his best friend if he saw him, so why did she think she could talk to Lupin after he transformed?
Answer: Hermione was quoting what she knew from reading in text books. Now she was in a precarious real-life situation and she's going to try anything to survive. At first, Lupin (as a werewolf) seems passive and non-dangerous, prompting her to see if she can communicate with him. She quickly realises she's wrong.
I wonder why Lupin can't recognize Hermione while in his werewolf form, but he used to spend time with James, Peter, and Sirius, in their Animagus forms? So he was capable of recognizing friends.
All 3 friends of Remus managed to calm down werewolf Lupin as animagi after a while. But only Sirius wasn't enough apparently, plus it had been decades since they did that.
Totally agree with Lionhead, but would emphasize that Lupin had no control whatsoever over his mind, did not know who he was, nor did he recognize anyone when he transformed into a werewolf. He simply related to James, Sirius, and Pettigrew in their Animagus forms as being other animals who could moderate his behaviour and kept him far away from humans.
Question: The events of Scream VI take place around Halloween, but it doesn't specify what year. A news reporter said that the Woodsboro killings took place in 2022 as if they happened a year ago, and Scream VI was released in March of 2023. So, do the events of Scream VI take place on Halloween of 2022 or 7 months in the future after the film's release date?
Answer: Using some conjecture, if the film states the last killings took place in 2022 and treats it like "last year," you can assume it takes place around Halloween 2023. Films are allowed to take place in the future. They don't have to be set around their release date. So how is this a mistake?
Answer: I think this is more "trivia" than mistake. There's no error in a film taking place a bit further ahead in time than in its release date.
Question: What does Colonel O'Connell yell to his Legionnaires in French as the cavalry charge nears? And why does he then continue in English ("Steady, Steady...Fire!").
Answer: He is in the French Foreign Legion, which is a corps in the French army which allows foreigners to sign up. But, it is mostly led by French and a lot of French nationals are still a part of it. So hence why he speaks in multiple languages, being trained by French.
Yes, I know, but what does he yell in French? Does anyone have the text? It's not in the script. Fraser is fluent in French, maybe it was his improvisation. I'd still like to know what he said.
Ah yes, sorry. I was too focussed on the second question. He says "Prenez vos positions." Which means "take your positions!"
Question: Why does the bartender tell Doc "you know what happened last 4 of July" when he offered him a shot of whiskey if he's only been there 1 week?
Answer: In the letter Marty gets, Doc says he's been living in 1885 for the past 8 months. It's dated September 1. Marty in 1955 finds out that Doc dies one week after he wrote the letter (Sept 7th), not one week after he got to 1885. Marty then goes to Sept 2, 1855, one day after Doc wrote the letter.
Answer: Yes there is a tear you can see on her face. I think it is meant to be a happy tear because Hagrid is a kind and caring person to her and others at Hogwarts.