Answered questions about specific movies, TV and more

This page is for questions relating to a specific title. If you have a more general question, please check out the general movie questions section. Click the button below a question to answer it or click "edit" to correct a spelling mistake. Ask your questions here, and hopefully someone will answer soon. Members get e-mailed when any of their questions are answered.

Question: When Andy got Norton and Hadley arrested, how did he manage to prove that they murdered Tommy? How did he manage to prove that he wasn't trying to escape?


Chosen answer: He provided the authorities (and the media) evidence of all the money-laundering and illegal activities that happened at Shawshank...any specific evidence he had regarding Tommy is not shown in the film, but it can be assumed that Hadley, as revealed in Red's narration, broke down and confessed. Andy never intended to prove he wasn't trying to escape...he DID escape, so any attempt by him to prove otherwise would have been met with skepticism. Also, as far as the authorities are concerned, all the evidence came from his alter ego, "Randall Stevens."

Question: In the trial at the start of the movie, we see a flashback of Andy walking with his gun. Where exactly was he? Was that a real flashback, or just what the prosecutor was assuming happened? Did Andy actually almost kill his wife but decide against it?


Chosen answer: Andy showed up at his wife's lover's house, either to kill them or just threaten them. He had a change of heart and left. Unfortunately, his fingerprints were all over the bullets and liquor bottle he left at the scene, which was pretty damning.

Brian Katcher

Question: Why is the Apple logo on Nick's laptop upside down?

Chosen answer: Apple PowerBooks of the time (around 1999 to 2001) had the logo the right way up to the user when closed, supposedly to prioritise the experience of the user over that of onlookers. According to former Apple employee Joe Moreno, Steve Jobs later changed his mind and after 2001, Apple notebooks had the logo right way up when opened.


Question: Why didn't Henry wear a prison uniform?


Chosen answer: Most probably due to mass corruption within the prison. Guards on the mafia payroll would let them wear their own clothes in the same way they didn't eat the prison food but got to have their own superior food brought in.


Happy Birthday, Mr. Monk - S8-E9

Question: At his birthday party, Monk realises that Pressman is the murderer and when he looks at his ice cubes, he sees that they are square while everybody else's is round. He then realises that the poison was in the ice cubes and now his ice cubes were filled with poison. Why would Pressman try to kill Monk? He never did anything that gave Pressman the indication that he was on to him. All Monk did was want his self-cleaning vacuum fixed.

Chosen answer: When Natalie and Monk took the vacuum cleaner to Pressman, Pressman asks about the cases they're working on, and after Pressman mentions the janitor cases, Natalie says that Mr. Monk always says "it's a work in progress" when he's close to solving the case. Pressman was afraid Monk would figure out the connection of the two cases soon.


Question: Bernie made a full confession of murdering Mrs. Nugent to the police. In the event of full confessions, the cases go before a judge only for conviction and sentencing. So why did Bernie have to go before a jury trial?

Charles Austin Miller

Chosen answer: Confessing to a crime is not the same as pleading guilty in court. The DA had charged Bernie with premeditated murder (1st degree murder), but still had to prove in court it was premeditated, Bernie only confessed to killing her.


Question: If Norton had helped Andy get a new trial, would it really work? There was no evidence that Elmo Blatch committed the murders.


Chosen answer: The sole piece of evidence was to be Tommy's testimony, which could have exonerated Andy even if it didn't prove that Blatch was the killer. When Tommy was murdered by Hadley under orders from Norton, that ended any chance of Andy getting a new trial.


Answer: I would say that Andy getting a NEW trial would be virtually impossible. For a prisoner to get a new trial, their attorney has to file an appeal with any information "supposedly" exonerating their client and/or proves some kind of malfeasance or errors in the original trial. Now courts rarely like to ever grant new trials to begin with so one must have awfully damning evidence to get one. I can only surmise that it would've been even harder during that Era than now as well. Now here's the problem or rub for Andy. All of the evidence, which is to say one piece in the testimony, wouldn't likely even be allowed into record or entry as evidence. First, it would likely fall under the here-say rules and deemed inadmissible in court... However, say even Tommy stayed alive and testified to what he knew and it could be entered in as evidence, it would do nothing without verification/corroboration. Now I can't remember if anything was said to whatever became of Elmo Blatch... I never read the book either so I can't say... But HAD Mr Blatch still been alive at that point, he would have been investigated and interviewed. If any evidence was found that pointed to Mr Blatch and/or Mr Blatch admitted his guilt, only then would Andy likely have enough for a new trial which would almost certainly end with Andy's conviction vacated especially if Blatch admitted it. However, via the film, all evidence leads to Andy and there's almost no chance Blatch would have admitted his own guilt especially since he relished the fact that someone else was paying for his crime. The only hope Andy would have had is that Mr Blatch had at least one or more other cell mates that he also spilled his guts to. Then Andy might have some hope that enough admissible testimony might award him a new trial. Problem is that none of that would have completely exonerated him and he'd just be retried. Which would still point to him because even if they could prove that Blatch had been in the area and his "supposed" confession, it would be circumstantial evidence and not likely to overcome the physical evidence that pointed straight at Andy. Hence Andy would just be back into jail. There's a lot that would have to go right or break Andy's way for him to get exonerated. He was the perfect patsy which was even an intended outcome by Blatch.

Question: When Don asks why Russell Sr. won't go on their trip, he says that Mae can't go due to "plumbing." Was he referring to her being on her period?

Chosen answer: More along the lines of a serious health problem related to her "plumbing".

Greg Dwyer

Show generally

Question: If Rumplestiltskin can see the future, why is he always surprised when bad things happen?


Chosen answer: Even if one can see the future, it can be somewhat vague and left open to interpretation.


He can sees the future all jumbled up. It is like a puzzle, it is hard to put together, but even when he does put it together it is not set in stone the future can change.

Question: I would appreciate sincere opinions of the following: I watched the original Star Wars movie when it came out in the 80's. Now I want to catch up and watch all of them to get ready for the next. In what order do you think it is best to watch all the episodes now available?

Chosen answer: The first Star Wars film came out in 1977. The best way to watch Star Wars is in the original order that the films were released: Episodes 4 through 6 first, then Episodes 1 through 3, then Episode 7 and Rogue One. If you watch the episodes in sequential order (1,2,3,4,5,6,7), then you will be disappointed with the lower quality of the early special effects in Episodes 4 through 6. Some aspects of the prequels also depend on, or are at least enhanced by having seen the original three movies.

Charles Austin Miller

Answer: This boils down to personal taste and there are advantages as well as drawbacks to each. If you only care about all the flashy special effects, then you should watch in order of release dates as the cinema quality has gotten better with time (Episodes 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 7, Rogue One). You will have questions surrounding the plot as the events of Episodes 4, 5, 6 occur 18-20 years after the events of Episodes 1, 2, 3. However if you care more about story telling, plot development and general acting ability then you should watch in sequential order (Episodes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Rogue One). OR you can watch in chronological order (Episode 1, 2, 3, Rogue One, 4, 5, 6, 7) and get the best of both worlds. The down side here is that there are discontinuities in lore due to the fact that Episodes 1, 2, 3 were written 20 years after Episodes 4, 5, 6. Like I said, it's all personal taste. May the Force be with you.

Question: Lindsay just had her first encounter with an alien. She and Bud are discussing what happened in the submarine to Jammer. In the background there is a window with an upside down plush toy what looks like a cat clawing to get out of the rig by way of the window. Is this a reference to something that might have been cut from the movie?

Chosen answer: No, it's only meant to show the crew's sense of humor.


Question: In the hotel fight scene with Ms. Perkins, she takes what I think is the bottom end of her jacket and bites down on it. Any idea why? Just curious.

Chosen answer: She is setting up the choke move she uses on Wick seconds later. She places the strap to her jacket in her mouth so she can reach it when she spins around. She then wraps it around Wick's neck and tries to strangle him with the strap.


Question: This question is about all of the prequels. Has George Lucas and/or Hayden Christensen ever commented on the massive of amount of criticism for Hayden's performance as Anakin?

Chosen answer: Not exactly. George Lucas generally chalks up all the negative reactions to the prequels to overly high expectations and his own unique writing and directing style. Christensen has only ever vaguely commented on the experience not being the best but hasn't really said anything about the criticism of his performance.


Question: When Mike took little Mikey away, when Boo cried the lights started to flicker, and when she laughed, the lights all shattered. How come when Sully was singing to Boo and Mike tripped on a lamp and she laughed, the lights weren't so overpowered?

Chosen answer: There are a number of times when Boo laughs or giggles briefly that the power isn't affected. Presumably the laughter needs to reach a certain level to become useful. Just as they aren't able to make power by screaming themselves, there's something particular to both the screams and the laughter.

Jason Hoffman

Question: When the General enquires if the Confederates are Tucker's men, his adjutant answers "yes, we discovered them that morning." He states that Tucker's men have been there 2 days. How would he know that?

Chosen answer: They were likely searching for Tucker's men for two days, and finally stumbled across their location.

Jason Hoffman

Question: I understand the concept of spelling mistakes and an editor accidentally missing them, especially for an unknown actor's name. But how did "Callahan" end up getting misspelled when it was spelled correctly in the first film? Has any reason been given? Or if there someone with general knowledge of how end credits are produced, is there no editor?


Chosen answer: The error didn't necessarily start with the makers of the credits. It could have crept into the process at any point. Whoever typed up the names to give them to the technicians who made the credits could have misspelled the name.

Jason Hoffman

Question: At the end when time catches up with the people from the plane they all go up against the wall to avoid being where other people might be. I assume this is because they didn't want to risk being in the same spot as another person when time caught up. My question is what would have happened with the plane on the runway? What would happen if time caught up and someone or something happened to be in that spot?

Chosen answer: It is impossible to say because the story never explains what would happen in this specific situation.


Mr. Monk and the Class Reunion - S5-E6

Question: In this episode, Monk discovers that Kyle intends to murder his wife Dianne and then make it look like suicide. Why would he do that? I've watched the whole episode and still can't figure out the reason.

Answer: You can hear Kyle talk to his "mistress" on the phone when he is at the ice cooler in the hotel, thereby making it clear he has an "extramarital" affair, thereby outing his motive to get rid of the wife who brought the money into the her life insurance, supposedly.

Chosen answer: When Dianne was in college, she had attempted to commit suicide and even wrote a suicide note. Dianne saved the note this whole time and Kyle had found it. If Kyle killed Dianne and made it look like a suicide, the suicide note would be authentic (rather than having to try and forge a suicide note that could be proven to be fake). This is why Kyle arranged for specific activities to occur that seemed odd to Monk, the dog having the same name, the missed pass that broke the glass, etc. These were all mentioned in the original suicide note.


Question: What was Andy's motive for telling Hadley the procedures of tax evasions?

Chosen answer: Like Red said, it could be to get the guards on his side, or to help the other inmates like him, or to do something to feel normal again.

Greg Dwyer

Question: Why didn't they just put the small gem explosives in the cart with Yen? Why all the drama with the briefcase?

Chosen answer: They needed Saul to be in the eye-in-the-sky room so he could distract the employees long enough for Dell to switch to video without them noticing.

Greg Dwyer



Join the mailing list