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 the bus do a 180? You never saw the semi truck in that shot, so why did it make an insane turn like that when the truck had nothing at all to do with it?

Answer: There might be a deleted scene showing an extended chase scene, but as it is, it seems out of place. From what I can tell, the road was slick, like something oily was spilt on the road during the chase. I don't think it's from the fruit and vegetable truck either. The bus looks like it's breaking suddenly (perhaps to avoid an unseen wreck) and skidded out and the driver over compensated, spinning the bus out. In fairness, a licensed bus driver would probably be able to control the bus in that situation, so it was exaggerated for the film. It probably should have been cut, but I'm guessing someone liked it and kept it in for more action.

Bishop73

Question: Were the "four horsemen" fakes? If not, how did they get the nukes inside them in the first place?

Answer: They were most likely fakes, they just built the statues around the nukes. Like making a parade float containing a small motor for it to move.

Answer: It was probably a matter of public record or a big company she worked for would have some connections to find out.

Question: Claire, with her head covered, is spared from getting her fingers cut off. But in the unaltered timeline, Doug does not appear, thus Claire would have her fingers cut off and burned and would later be found washed up on shore. So shouldn't Claire on the autopsy table be wearing the same dress as when Doug saves her, and not the dress she changes into after she is saved?

Answer: In the movie Doug time travelled only once but if you look closely Doug travelled more than once and failed. Also present Doug sees Claire fridge sign (U can save her) and travels again so it's like a loop. We don't know how many times he travels, it could be 5-6 or more than we could count, but this time Doug breaks the loop by saving Claire, because if she dies his former self will go to Claire's house and see fridge sign (U can save her) and the loop resets even though Doug died, but he succeeded in breaking the loop.

Question: Dr. Lull says that she will do as Mr. Mclane says and "cover up any memory (Quaid) has of us or Rekall." However, when Dr. Edgemar comes in Quaid's hotel room on Mars, Edgemar reminds him that his experiences on Mars have been exactly what Quaid requested in his secret agent fantasy at Rekall, to which Quaid agrees. So obviously his memory of Rekall wasn't "covered up"?

Rollie55

Answer: Dr Lull was told to cover up any memory he has of them or Rekall. She replies "I'll do what I can it's pretty messy in there." She may not have done a good job. Later Cohaagen told Richter that Quaid couldn't remember anything and Richter said "that's now, in an hour he could have total recall."

Answer: He said, "Erase his memory of ever coming to Rekall," not the idea of going there, and the doctor said she'll do what she can to erase his memory, but it's pretty messy in there.

No he doesn't say that. He said "cover up any memory he has of us or Rekall." But they didn't, because he knows what Edgemar is talking about when he tells him the "demure and sleazy" woman is exactly what Quaid requested at Rekall.

Rollie55

Maybe they tried their best, but didn't succeed. Quite possible if his mind was already that messy.

lionhead

Well at first the movie implies that they did erase his memory of Rekall, because when Harry told him he went to Rekall he had no idea that he had been there. But later in the movie he remembers that he chose "demure and sleazy" when Edgemar is talking to him. So it's an internal contradiction and plot hole.

Rollie55

Them failing to permanently erase the memory but only temporary is not a plot hole. Doesn't even help the plot along. It's not important at all.

lionhead

It is indeed a plot hole and contradiction in the script.

Rollie55

Question: When Bruce tracks down Aquaman in the Icelandic village, they have a conversation in which Aquaman calls Bruce "Batman" within earshot of strangers; since Bruce Wayne is highly protective of his secret identity as Batman, isn't this a bit careless on Aquaman's part? Even if the Icelandic villagers didn't understand English (unlikely, since most Icelandic people are at least bilingual), they would still recognize the word "Batman" and be able to put two and two together.

zendaddy621

Answer: It is implied that the village is isolated. Bruce says that Arthur helps the villagers survive the winter by bringing them fish, which indicates they are so cut off from the world they would die out without Arthur's help. There is no indication that any of these people have ever heard of either Bruce Wayne or Batman. Neither appears to be particularly famous outside of Gotham, Clark didn't recognize Bruce Wayne in the previous film at the party and Batman had only recently made national news.

BaconIsMyBFF

Question: I always feel like I'm missing something with the scene where Kirk orders the Enterprise to reverse at the beginning of the battle. It confuses the Klingons and leads to a short respite in taking fire, which I would assume was exactly Kirk's intention, but then Kirk himself expresses confusion that the Klingons had stopped firing. What else could Kirk have been trying to do with that action?

TonyPH

Chosen answer: Kirk is highly skilled and experienced in combat. He knows the bird of prey must be between the Enterprise and the planet, so he instinctively orders a reverse after they are hit, fearing that they are at point-blank range. Chang is worried that Kirk may have somehow detected him, so he holds fire and repositions, but Kirk is merely being cautious.

BaconIsMyBFF

Answer: Kirk wants to buy time to find a way to detect Chang's ship. Reversing is an unorthodox tactic so Chang is also thinking.

Question: In the opening scene, why was Luis not particularly bothered by the sudden appearance of a neighbor child in their house standing at the entrance to their bedroom? He reacts to her initially as though she were an overnight guest who had been sleeping down the hall and not as someone who doesn't live there.

quinnnmallory

Answer: Since it's not addressed in the script or the film, any answer would be speculation. One could be that Luis is just a generally laid back person, and the appearance of a young child he knows is not enough to ruffle his feathers, even if she isn't supposed to be there. He also just woke up, so he could be a bit groggy and not fully processing the situation as quickly as he might normally. More likely, it's simply the way the scene was filmed; the director and actor didn't think it important to show Luis "bothered" by the girl's presence (prior to noticing the blood, of course).

Answer: He also likely knew her since Anna had a conversation with the kid earlier about "say hi to your mom for me'.

Answer: On the show, orange uniforms are worn by the new inmates, while the khaki is the longer-term population. Generally, there's no standardized meaning of the colors as every prison has their own color-coding system. For example, red could mark more dangerous inmates. Other colors could indicate lower-risk prisoners, ones with health issues, area designations, and so on.

raywest

Question: Is/was it really possible to smoke a cigarette on a submarine? (01:57:10 - 01:58:20)

Answer: Smoking was allowed on U.S. Navy subs up to 2010, though not when a sub was submerged. During WWII, there were restrictions about smoking on deck because the enemy could detect a glowing cigarette ember at night. After 2010, smoking was banned entirely. Foreign navies would have different rules, of course.

raywest

Answer: The engineering officer comes off as a bit of a rebel and the captain tolerates it as he is good at his job and is also one of the conspirators to defect.

Question: Did Evie actually love Tracy or was she just using her the whole time? Did she actually want to be friends with her?

Answer: Tracy acted like she had done everything Evie did before. She pretended she was already bad to become friends with them, so Evie thought she had found someone who was like her. Evie was definitely also in love with Tracy, but was also jealous since Tracy had a family who loved her. She wanted that. Yes she used Tracy, but she also cared about her.

I don't think Evie was romantically in love with Tracy. It was more about her wanting to *be* Tracy, with a mother like Tracy's. Also, she seemed to know that Tracy was only pretending to be "bad." I think Tracy's innocence made Evie sad, because there was a time when Evie was more like her.

Answer: My interpretation is that Evie hates her home life, so she drifts between various friends. She hopes to stay at their homes and feel "included" in their families. Notice how she kept trying to please Mel. Eventually, she overstays her welcome and people make her leave. Tracy was just the current "friend" who Evie was using.

Answer: I don't think Evie ever loved Tracy or cared about her. I genuinely believe the whole reason why Evie befriended Tracy in the first place was the reason she knew well how innocent Tracy actually was and in a way Evie was jealous of that so I think she purposely wanted to change her which she knew would happen if Tracy started to hang out with her. The reason why the whole friendship continued is because of Tracy's mom which Evie was jealous she never had. I guess she thought that becoming obsessively close with Tracy would make her feel like she was part of the family and Mel was also her mother and Tracy probably her sister.? That explains the reason why Evie ditched Tracy the moment she realised Mel isn't going to adopt her - Evie never cared about Tracy she just wanted her life and when she realised that she couldn't have it she tried to ruin it by snitching on Tracy That's my explanation on the whole Evie - Tracy relationship in general.

Question: Why didn't Greg simply apologize to Mr. Beardo and explain everything to him?

Answer: "Beardo" looked intimidating and could easily frighten a child (or adult, for that matter). He also became enraged in front of children over scratches on his van - something minor that might bother an adult, but certainly not serious enough to produce Beardo's over-reaction. Greg did deny that he caused the damage. However, Beardo did not come across as being a rational adult or someone who a 12-year-old would feel comfortable standing up to or simply trying to reason with. Greg saw Beardo as a "difficult" and irrational person, so rightfully wanted to get away from him as soon as possible.

KeyZOid

Answer: Mainly because when they first actually meet, the Beardo's daughter blames everything on Greg, so even if Greg did try to explain everything, the Beardo probably wouldn't believe him.

Answer: There's probably a combination of factors why Greg kept things to himself. Teenagers don't tell parents a lot of things for whatever reasons (e.g, not worth the hassle). Maybe Greg thought his parents wouldn't believe his side of the story and assume he was the instigator. Perhaps Greg's parents gave the boys a stern warning to behave themselves while on vacation - that they need/ want rest and relaxation or care-free days without trouble, especially from the boys (trying to avoid the "can't you even behave yourselves on vacation" lecture). Believing "ignorance is bliss", Greg figured what his parents didn't know couldn't hurt them. Telling his parents may not have been helpful or relevant; Beardo was acting like a lunatic or psycho on each encounter. It might have been difficult, if not impossible, to tell his parents without Rodrick overhearing. Some of the things Greg did (getting into bed with Beardo) were embarrassing; if Rodrick knew, they'd become the brunt of his teasing.

KeyZOid

Enigma - S1-E17

Question: Maybourne threatens Daniel with a court-martial if he continues to disobey orders by helping the Tollan. The driving force of him helping is the idea that since he's a civilian he can't be court-martialed. But how accurate is that? Can a civilian who works for and/or with the military be court-martialed, especially if he or she has participated in military operations? The Stargate program is essentially a black-ops program and Daniel signed an NDA, so how could he ever face a non-military court?

Bishop73

Answer: In real life, under certain conditions, civilians working with military forces can be required to abide by military law as well as the civilian laws of their nation. This is usually when civilians (eg. scientists, contractors, etc) are deployed for a lengthy time as part of a military force at war (or similar operations). The requirement to abide by the law is usually explained carefully to the civilian and signed before deployment. This helps fit civilians into a chain of command and maintains discipline, without having to return to courts in the home country for infractions. There may be many parts of military law that don't apply to the civilian (e.g. alcohol is forbidden to all personnel, but the civilian does not have to have a regulation haircut). Also, very serious crimes by anyone in a force may be dealt with by civilian courts, if the military can't for some reason. So it is feasible that Daniel would be subject to at least some parts of military law (and civil law too).

Question: At the end of Jason Lives, Jason was chained at the bottom of Forest Green Lake, but in this movie the camp doesn't appear, and he is chained next to house, why is that?

Answer: After years of campers being butchered by Jason, the property was most likely sold for a loss to greedy developers, who care more about profit than danger and turned it into lakeside homes.

Question: Joe Pesci figures out from the photographs that Marisa Tomei took of the tire tracks that his defendants' car couldn't have made those tracks. But Marisa Tomei didn't realise it before Pesci got her on the stand, even though she saw the pictures before Pesci did as she took them and had them developed and then only showed them to Pesci. Why didn't she realise this, was she just not looking as carefully as Pesci was?

Rollie55

Answer: She didn't notice because she wasn't looking for it. When he asked her if the Skylark could have made the tracks, she realised it was impossible.

LorgSkyegon

Question: After they find the body in Asher's apartment, and the cops are securing the scene, Paquette says, "lab results for Acosta's DNA came in...he's clean" How did his DNA clear? It came back as James Acosta?

Answer: As "Costa" was initially a suspect, the police took a DNA sample, which did not match any DNA on file - that was what they meant by "he's clean." It basically means that Asher was very careful at not leaving DNA evidence (other than that of others like Hart to frame them). Presumably the real Costa had no DNA profile linked to his identity on file either, or it could have returned a mismatch and revealed Asher's deception.

Sierra1

Question: What exactly did David transform into after biting into a cable?

Answer: His power is that he basically absorbs elements. Thus, when he bit the cable, he absorbed the electrical energy and became a giant electrical being. Then, throughout the fight, he absorbs other elements (rock, water, etc.) and takes on their form.

TedStixon

Question: Why does Hulk agree to give David his power near the end of the movie?

Answer: Because he knew it would overwhelm him.

lionhead

Well to be honest, I have no clue why David wanted the Hulk power so badly instead of being satisfied with the being he's become at the end of the movie. The guy can turn into anything he wants.

Because he always wanted more. He is a greedy character. Even though he was that powerful, he felt Hulk was more powerful than him, and he wanted that power.

lionhead

Question: Shouldn't there be more people on bicycles? I think a lot of people rode bicycles during this time. At least in the Monterey area. Probably not on the farm as much. People became very car happy in the 50s. Also, the haircuts are very 1940s / early 1950s.

Answer: Many earlier Hollywood movies were often less concerned about recreating a precise historical time period and instead evoked the era's atmosphere. Audiences then were less discerning or knowledgeable about history and details regarding hairstyles, makeup, clothing, manners, etc. which were sometimes diluted, glossed over, and often wrong. More people may have ridden bicycles during that era but many had cars, though it's unessential to the plot either way.

raywest

Question: When Little John is cutting everybody free from the gallows, he calls them milksops. Why was this word censored when it was shown on TV?

Answer: There's no reason it should be bleeped out, though maybe censors misinterpreted it. The word merely refers to someone who is weak or timid.

raywest

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.