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: Whenever Tim goes back in time, his clothes change to whatever he was wearing at the time, but he always appears in the same spot that he left from. Both times he goes back to the NYE party he appears in the upstairs wardrobe. So what happened to the version of him that was already walking around at the party? Did that version of him just vanish?

Answer: This is one of the (many) time travel plot holes in the film, and unfortunately your question doesn't really have a definitive, or satisfying, answer. Richard Curtis has said he was less concerned with making an airtight time travel film than with the human story at its core, so he let things like this slide without explanation. However, since we don't see any "second" Tims around when he goes back in time, and no-one else seems to think of him as an "extra" Tim, we can safely assume that, yes, he replaces himself in the timeline when he travels back. (Of course, this doesn't explain what happens when he then returns FROM the past).

Question: How was Alonzo going to square his $1M debt to the Russians when his take from Roger's robbery/arrest was only $250,000? I believe that they split the $1M from Roger 4 ways.


Answer: They seized $4M and Alonzo's cut was $1M.


I believe you are mistaken. The box held $4M originally. Alonzo hands out a bundle of cash that he says is $250,000. And the dialog is Alonzo: there's over $4M dollars in here! You lucky prick! First day on the job you hit a three million dollar seizure" Jake: " Wait, you said Four..." Alonzo: "Aha, taxation without representation, brotha. Nothing's free in this world. Buy your wife a mini van, put the kids through college"

Answer: From Wikipedia plot summary: Four million dollars was taken from Roger's house. That would make Alonzo's share $1 million.

raywest Premium member

Please see other reply. If you actually watch the movie, that isn't correct.

The Santa in the Slush - S3-E9

Question: So from my understanding the Santa that died caught and confronted the Santa that is the pick pocket? They fought and the nice Santa does but then, how does the money from the pick pocket end up in dead Santa's apartment?

Answer: It's a made up song for the show. It's a synth version of what the kids sang in Mr. Frond's video at the beginning of the episode. "Let's Swap Eyes."


Question: Why does Kaiser Soze ask Keaton if he's ready before he shoots him on the boat?

Answer: He was asking if he was ready to die. Keaton knew there was no way out, his partners were dead, and he was injured. There was nothing left for him.

Question: What are the potential problems that Watney talks about in his video log?

Answer: The harsh environment of Mars. The batteries had limited power. The food could only last a few months not years, same thing with the living quarters and equipment.

Question: How old was Frank and Faye's son Bobby when he died?

Answer: There is a newspaper article and it says that Bobby died when he was 18.

Question: Isn't Hangman's ammo still full after he hits the bandit chasing Mav and Rooster? Shouldn't it be short of the fired rocket?

Answer: You're correct - when you see Hangman's loadout before he lands back on the deck - he still has all weapons on the rails - it should be that he is short an AIM-9 or an AIM-120 AMRAAM depending on what was fired.

In all shots of Hangman's F/A-18E after the final battle (especially in the close-up right before he lands on the carrier), it is shown that there is an AIM-120 loaded onto the right air intake weapon station. The left air intake station is empty - indicating either no weapon was loaded or an AIM-7/AIM-120 was fired.

You can see that all his missiles are still intact and even if one is missing it would be very unlike to only load on the right and not the left as well. But where he says "This is your savior speaking" you can see all missiles are still on the plane and unfired.

Question: Why didn't Dumbledore apprehend Grindelwald at the end? He saw the blood pact was broken, and he had loads of backup, instead he just walks off and lets him escape.

Answer: Dumbledore, as a Hogwarts professor, did not have any legal authority to apprehend Grindelwald or anyone else. That was up to the magical authorities.

raywest Premium member

But in the Crimes of Grindelwald, Travers - Head of Magical Law Enforcement for the Ministry personally asks Dumbledore to fight Grindelwald. Then immediately after in the film loads of people attack Grindelwald including Kama who doesn't work for any magical authority?

Kama and the others made their own decision to do that, whether or not they had the authority. Dumbledore obviously felt it wasn't his responsibility to apprehend Grindelwald, particularly considering their mutual history.

raywest Premium member

Question: In Kobra Kai, Silver tells Chozen he never had children. Then why are people saying Snake was Silver's son especially since it was never established in the movie that he was?


Answer: When the movie came out in '89, it was revealed by the director John Avildsen that he had cast his real life son Jonathon as Terry Silvers son Snake. Although that connection is not mentioned in the movie, it did help explain why a grown man had a teenage boy living in his house.

Question: Am I the only one that has seen an alternate ending to Shane? I saw it once where he comes riding back from over the hill.

Answer: During the 1960's, there was a TV Series, "Shane," which ran for one season on ABC. The premise was Shane returned to the ranch to help the now widowed Starrett and her son.

Thanks for the reply, but my daughter already suggested that one. That definitely wasn't it though. I've never even seen that TV show. The one I saw first was Allan Ladd and no other. All the other actors the same as well. There is no other movie that I have ever thought this about.

Answer: As far as I know there is no alternate ending. I've watched it for over forty years.

I saw Shane for the first time in 1970. I do remember it well. It was a slightly different version. I've seen it several times since and it is a different version. The first one I saw was like this... The father was not as good of a husband and father. Shane and the woman had a bit more than just an attraction. The farmer knocked Shane out and the farmer went to town and got himself killed. After leaving, Shane came back over the hill. The boy, with tears in his eyes, yelled "Shane you came back".

This is a perfect example of the Mandela Effect. No alternate version of the film exists where Shane comes back over the hill. There would be no reason for the studio to spend the money to script, shoot, edit, and distribute two versions of a film that vary so wildly. That there is no evidence of this alternate version other than "memories" should indicate that it doesn't actually exist. It is possible you are conflating elements of the film and the 1966 television series.


Yeah, that's what everyone says. So far no-one has seen what I saw. My best guess is that I saw an alternate version of the movie that they accidentally released briefly to my local Dayton Ohio TV station in 1970. Then again maybe I was briefly transported to an alternate universe where that is their version? Just kidding... I think?

Question: Where did the pocket watch originate? He got it from her, but she got it from him. No one bought it.

Answer: The book never included each of them giving the other the pocket watch. So it was added just for the film, but I don't know if the film makers did this to intentionally show audiences the paradoxes of time travel. This would be an example of a causality loop. The watch seems to exists solely because of time travel. This would be like if you were visited by your future self who tells you how to build a time machine and gives you the plans. You build the time machine and afterwards, go back in time to give your younger self the plans to build a time machine. So where did the plans come from? One solution basically states time was moving linear and at some point you invent time travel. Then once you go into the past, you created a loop. So at some point in the past, Elise had the pocket watch which she gives to Richard for some reason and when he gives it to her in the past, he creates the loop. But the film is just the loop, so we don't know where it comes from.


Question: How was Alonzo going to square a debt of $1M to the Russians when his cut of the take from Roger was $250,000?

Answer: From Wikipedia: His cut was one quarter of the $4 million that was seized from Roger's house. That would be $1 million.

raywest Premium member

They stole a total of $1M from Roger, the box held $4M. They kept $1M and the remaining $3M was evidence. The fruits of the bust. Alonzo handed Jake and Jeff each $250,000. Granted, Jake didn't accept his share but there were 3 other dirty cops and everyone except Jake took a cut. It doesn't add up.

Question: How did Lone Starr learn to talk if the monks he was raised with took a vow of silence?

Answer: That's the joke.

Question: When Van Helsing turns into a werewolf, what fur color is he supposed to have? When he turns into a werewolf, he has black fur. When he fights Dracula, his fur is brown and after killing Dracula, it's black again.

Answer: His fur is black the entire time. What you're noticing is simply a trick of the lighting. Throughout the scene, there's a lot of warm, chaotic light from all the flame and sparks. When that chaotic, fiery light hits his sleek black fur, it gives his fur sort-of an amber glow, which kind of makes it look like his fur is brownish. But you'll notice that whenever he's in an area where there's less fire/sparks, that hue goes away. It's just the ambient lighting of the scene reflecting off his fur.


Question: This movie seems to end on a cliffhanger. Are they making another movie or are they done?

Answer: At this point in time, there are no plans for a direct sequel to "The Last Knight." The movie "Bumblebee" was originally made to serve as a prequel/spin-off, but the studio subsequently decided to treat it as a sort-of "soft reboot." The next movie, "Transformers: Rise of the Beasts," will be a direct sequel to "Bumblebee" and will be set in the 1990's. And I believe at this point in time, the current plan is to continue the "Bumblebee" storyline instead of continuing the storyline of the original five films. It should also be noted that the original five movies got increasingly negative critical/fan reception with each film, and this film performed poorly at the box office... whereas "Bumblebee" got the best reviews of the series from both critics and fans, cost significantly less money, and turned a decent profit. It makes more sense businesswise to make a "Bumblebee" sequel than a "The Last Knight" sequel.


Answer: As far as I know there is none, the last movie was not well-received by the critics and the audience.

Question: Do the Na'vi actually think Jake is one of them from a different "tribe" or do they know he's an Avatar? He shows up speaking English with human clothes, obviously not a native yet they allow him to stay (albeit after some resistance). Why is this?

Answer: Yes, they know he's a human, there were others before him. He said he was there to learn their ways and customs. They felt if he could become one of them, it comes to an understanding and stop the invading machinery. The Tom Cruise movie, "The Last Samurai," has the same plot.

Question: Why did Lily never accept Snape's apology for calling her a mudblood? He never meant it as it was said in the heat of the moment.

Answer: I think it was Hermione who said "it's the worst thing you can say. It means dirty blood" Lily is deeply hurt by Snape saying it. It's similar to a modern day argument. Some things just can't be taken aback.

Ssiscool Premium member

Good answer. Would add that Lily's hurt and disgust also stemmed from Snape calling her that after she had befriended and defended him against cruel students, including James Potter and Sirius Black. Snape turning on her that way and his increasing dark beliefs were too much for Lily.

raywest Premium member

Answer: Remember how enraged Ron got when someone called Hermione that? I get the impression 'mudblood' is the wizarding equivalent of the N word, and there are just some things you can't take back.

Brian Katcher

This is a good answer. It also should be noted Snape was already on thin ice with Lily as he was into dark arts, showed signs of intent to become a death eater, not to mention according to Lily he had been calling others of her birth the same name. This was the straw that broke the camel's back for her.

Answer: Rather than "heat of the moment", it was more like "the straw that broke the camel's back." Snape was friends with other pure-blood supremacists, who would later become Death Eaters. They bullied Muggle-borns. In the book, she asks him: "But you call everyone of my birth 'Mudblood', Severus. Why should I be any different?" Essentially, Snape had chosen his supremacist friends over her. He refused to stop joining in their behavior.

Question: Why is Quint's belt buckle undone and he is zipping up his pants as Hooper talks about his girlfriend who broke his heart. Was he showing off another scar, and they cut that scene out?

Answer: Yes, that part was edited out. As I remember it from the theatrical version, Quint had shown Hooper and Brody a scar below his waist, then was buckling his belt just as Hooper started talking about his "broken heart." This scene and others were likely edited to fit a TV time slot and allow for commercials.

raywest Premium member

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.