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

raph

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.

zendaddy621

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

raph

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.

zendaddy621

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: I don't get it, at the ending, the ship that the characters were standing, what caused it to sink when Elsa froze the lake?

Roman Curiel

Chosen answer: When water turns to ice it expands. The ice most likely squeezed the hull enough to break it and allow water in.

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.

Bishop73

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

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: 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.

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.

Bishop73

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.

raywest Premium member

Question: Rene Russo is listed in the credits as Lynn Wells, but in both the restaurant and when Jake asked for her on the phone with the Cuyahoga sheet metal place, they pronounce her name Westland. I even checked the subtitles. Did I miss something? They don't tell us Tom's last name but a playoff game for a divisional title would be about Oct 3rd when they were supposed to get married? Right?

Kim Robb

Show generally

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

TheCleverGal

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

raywest Premium member

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.

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 marriage...plus 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.

Bishop73

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 marriage...plus 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.

Bishop73

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: When the fake Professor Moody is in his office with Harry, revealing everything he did, Dumbledore charges into the room with Professors McGonagall and Snape. All three of them are prepared to attack when they enter. How did they figure out that something was wrong?

Chosen answer: When it was noticed that Harry was missing during the commotion surrounding Cedric's death, someone in the crowd saw Moody leading Harry away and tipped off Dumbledore. Dumbledore knew that the real Moody never would have taken Harry away like that without telling anyone. Also, Snape is a legilimens (able to read minds) and would be able to "hear" Harry and Moody's thoughts.

raywest Premium member

Question: How exactly did Harry and Ron make up after arguing for a while?

Chosen answer: It was somewhat gradual. Ron came to realise that he was being unfair to Harry, but was too proud to make the first move in making up. First he tipped off Harry about the dragons by way of Hermione and several other students. During the celebration in the Gryffindor Common Room, while everyone is celebrating Harry's retrieving the dragon's egg, the squealing noise it makes propels Ron to finally react and talk to Harry.

raywest Premium member

Question: What were the Centaurs going to do with Umbridge once they carried her away?

Chosen answer: It was never stated. In the books, they kept her prisoner until Dumbledore went into the forest and demanded that they release her, which they did.

raywest Premium member

Question: Who does the Joker get on the bus with after blowing up the hospital? Weren't those the people who just evacuated? If so, they definitely would not have waited there for him or let him on.

Chosen answer: He does indeed get on a bus with several people who were evacuated. The bus also contains his henchmen and is driven by one. He makes his escape by hiding in plain sight (as one of several buses that evacuated civilians from the hospital). The passengers of the bus then become the hostages in the high rise scene.

BaconIsMyBFF

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

Question: Which grandparent doesn't like candy?

Chosen answer: All of the grandparents like candy. But grandpa George doesn't like the way it is being used in the contest and he also doesn't like the children who end up getting the tickets.

Join the mailing list

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.