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: During Venom's fight with the SWAT team, he throws an officer off a balcony and the officer lets out a Wilhelm scream. Why was this scream taken out in the DVD and Blu-Ray?

Question: If the Terminator had succeeded in killing Sarah and effectively wiping out John Conner, then that would mean the machines would win and even kill off mankind. So after Skynet's mission was complete and all humans are dead, what would the machines do now that with no more humans left to kill?

Answer: It's really impossible to answer definitively, considering the film-makers have never addressed this. The films never specify any purpose Skynet has outside of wanting to wipe out humanity. Skynet simply wants to "live", to exist as a sentient consciousness but views all of humanity as a threat to its existence. Since artificial intelligence is thus far only a fictional concept, we can't even really speculate based on information outside of the Terminator series. We can perhaps imagine a scenario wherein Skynet is successful and lives in peace as the only intelligence on Earth. The machines themselves do not have individuality and only exist for the purposes of killing humans so there doesn't seem to be a logical reason why they would exists if Skynet wins. However, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable way Skynet could ever be sure they have killed every single human on the planet so I can also imagine a scenario where the machines endlessly patrol the planet, making sure humanity never rises again. Also, and this is food for thought, the time travel scenario present in these films is a grandfather paradox. Skynet leads to it's own creation by sending back a Terminator to kill Sarah Connor. Similarly John Connor is conceived because a Terminator was sent back in time, which is the paradox. Skynet winning would create another paradox wherein Skynet could not exist because John Connor was never born so they had no enemy to fight, etc. This sort of stuff can make your head explode.

BaconIsMyBFF

Just to be clear, the first movie doesn't say that Skynet created itself by sending a terminator back, that's the second movie. Also John Connor never being born doesn't remove their enemy, humanity is their enemy, it would stop the resistance and prevent the humans from winning, presumably. It does create a paradox though, like all time travel movies do.

lionhead

The first movie deleted specific scenes which referenced the defeated Terminator being used to create Skynet. This of course was fully formed in the sequel. Technically since they are deleted scenes they may not belong in a discussion about the first movie but I was speaking generally with regards to the series as a whole. It's really only relevant to my point about the paradox which doesn't really have anything to do with the original question. Also, John Connor is specifically Skynet's enemy. Without him humanity would have been easily defeated. Technically, yes they want to wipe out all humanity but without John Connor they would have succeeded and there would be no need to send a terminator back in time, which of course is the entire point of the series. Both the humans and Skynet believe this to be true.

BaconIsMyBFF

John Connor is the key to the paradox, true. Since John was created by Skynet's own attempt to stop him it's impossible for them to win the war. All movies tell us (except the horrible, terrible last one called Genisys) that skynet can not win the war by time travel. I had a whole essay written down but I decided not to post it, since talking about paradoxes is a paradox and they are highly interactive. Catch my drift?

lionhead

Thinking about paradoxes in movies like these can drive you insane.

BaconIsMyBFF

Agreed. I actually really love the paradox in the first Terminator. The idea that John gave Kyle a picture of his mother and Kyle fell in love with her because of that picture, and he always wondered what she was thinking about when the picture was taken, and it turns out she was thinking about how much she loved Kyle. Brilliant.

BaconIsMyBFF

Yeah, you know now I think about it, the first movie doesn't have a grandfather paradox at all, it's the exact opposite. They actually created a loop, the time travel made the resistance exist and skynet always will try to use time travel to destroy the resistance. The paradox, is the sequel, where they make us believe the time travel also made skynet, which is impossible and an actual grandfather paradox because skynet invented time travel (since in the second movie the time travelling terminator from the first movie became the "grandfather" of skynet basically). Maybe we should move this to the Forum though.

lionhead

Answer: He doesn't mean her, he means them, the Avengers, they have brought the Hulk on board.

lionhead

When Natasha calls Loki a monster, he responds, "No, love, you brought the monster."

And with the "you" he refers to the Avengers, not her specifically.

lionhead

Actually, it was Natasha who brought Bruce. She had been informed by Coulson that she was specifically requested to bring Bruce with her so Loki's comment "You brought the monster" was accurate.

She was tasked with recruiting Banner in person, and even then, numerous S.H.I.E.L.D. agents were there to back her up. Lionhead's comment about "you" being used collectively is correct.

Phaneron Premium member

Show generally

Question: Who is the brunette kid in the yellow shirt in the beginning? It's supposed to be Marc but it's not.

Answer: From what I've read, the kid in question was the original actor cast to play Mark and was intended be closer in age to Brendan. For whatever reason, they recast the role with Christopher Castile and didn't bother removing the original actor from the beginning of the opening credits. I guess they figured people would just assume the kid was one of Brendan's friends.

Phaneron Premium member

Question: What was the deal with the watch switch? The only person who could connect that watch to Slevin, as far as we know, is Lindsey, and he has no reason to try and make her think he's dead.

Answer: The plan was for Lindsey to identify him at the morgue and then be taken out by Goodcat. She knows that he's going to take her out so the watch is to now used to fool Goodcat by making him assume the original plan is followed. Lindsey verifying Slevin, ending the search, killing her tying up the last loose end. Hope that cleared it up.

Answer: There were actually a few watch switches, which need to be recalled to understand. In particular, GoodKat took Nick Fisher's watch and gave it to Slevin. When Lindsey asked Slevin why the mugger did not take his watch, Slevin responded that it was fake. Slevin later switched watches with Yitchok (rabbi's son), which means Yitchok was now wearing Nick Fisher's watch. By wearing Nick Fisher's watch, Yitchok could be implicated in his death and the police would believe they had solved the murder case but did not have to "try a dead man." Slevin now had Yitchok's watch which was, undoubtedly, an expensive name-brand such as Rolex. In short, Slevin "upgraded" his watch and Yitchok gets tied to Nick Fisher's murder.

KeyZOid

The 1st watch swap Slevin's dad is at the track, representing the last time he would see him. Also, explains the importance of the "fake" watch. The watch Lindsey sees is his father's as he wouldn't go anywhere without it. Slevin swaps with Fisher. Later flashback to Fisher look at his watch, then fwd to Slevin wearing it. Slevin swapped out of necessity, knowing it would identify him. Goodcat returns his dad's burnt watch at the end. Yitzchok's watch isn't mentioned. Value was irrelevant.

Slevin doesn't get Fisher's watch until they drop his body. That's the first and only swap. Yitzchok's watch is never mentioned, and value is irrelevant. The "try a deadman" was a fake plan involving 2 lovers killing each other told to the Boss and had nothing to do with the watch. Tried to find anything in your answer that was accurate but unfortunately nothing in your answer was in the movie.

Question: During Gordie's story, what was Boss Man saying? He was talking so fast I couldn't catch it all.

Answer: "Hey! From the racks and stacks, it's the best on wax! How 'bout another golden-oldie twin spin sound sandwich from klam in Portland?!"

BaconIsMyBFF

Question: Where does the $200,000 that was in the back of the Jaguar end up? There is a possibility that Natalie took it when Leonard goes to her house and she steps out or when he enters the car Teddy is inside and says he should lock it. Is there any evidence that either has it?

Question: Considering how powerful and dangerous the Ark is, why would Indy hand it over to the United States government, instead of putting it back where it was found and to ensure it's never located, lie to them and say him or the Nazis never found it?

Answer: Indy and Marcus Brody believed that the Ark needed to be studied. They certainly didn't want to put it back where it was found. They believed that the U.S. government would find the best archaeologists, researchers, and scientists in the world to study the Ark. They are both upset that instead, the government has decided to simply lock the Ark away. This is why Indy says "Fools. They don't know what they've got there." as he is leaving the building.

BaconIsMyBFF

Answer: To add to the previous answer, there is no way that the ark could have been secretly returned to where it was found and conveniently forgotten. Too many people already knew of its existence and location. It would only be a matter of time before someone more sinister would retrieve it. Rightfully, it belonged to the Egyptian government and should have been turned over to them.

raywest Premium member

Question: We were made to believe that they would be helpless without the holo device to spot the pods. Weren't all of the pods triggered by movement? Couldn't they just throw rubble ahead of them as they progressed? They would have to anyway as there could be additional pods that weren't shown by the holo device.

Answer: Knowing where the pods are exactly gives them a major advantage over throwing rubble. We are shown a pod that triggers machine guns. They know the pod is ahead of them so they take cover behind the stone structures. If they just randomly threw rubble and the pod was to the side of them, they would have been hit by the machine guns.

Ssiscool Premium member

Answer: It saves time, energy, and is safer and more efficient if they can specifically pinpoint where the pods are located rather than randomly throwing rubble in an attempt to find them.

raywest Premium member

Show generally

Question: What's the name of the episode where Mimi's head blows up and somehow disappears right after she calls Drew "pig"? I remember seeing it when I was 8.

Question: At the Jedi Temple, why does Commander Appo aim his gun at Senator Organa and try to kill him?

Answer: When Organa is trying to investigate what's going on at the Temple, he's simply just stopped by the troopers at first. They don't want him to witness what they are doing. At first he is just going to be turned away and threatened. When the Padawan attacks them and they kill the boy, Organa is now a first hand witness to the Troopers slaughtering the Jedi children. So then he becomes an enemy and they have to try and dispose of him. It would not have been good for them to just to out right kill a Senator on their own so that's why there were just going to turn him away.

Quantom X Premium member

Question: During the big fight scene near the end, one of the henchman Will Smith fights lifts a wrench to strike, only to randomly die for seemingly no reason. He screams, some sparks shoot out of his ears, and he's dead. What killed him? I've seen some people say he electrocuted himself on the equipment around him, but that's not true - the wrench is nowhere near hitting anything. Did he just... randomly blow a fuse or something?

TedStixon

Answer: He's some sort of robot or cyborg, and he's shorted out from the damage he received in the brawl.

Brian Katcher

Answer: In the original script, Jim West simply sidestepped the menacing MetalHead henchman, who plunged through the doorway, falling to his death. Apparently, this wasn't a spectacular enough way to end the brawl, so the scene was revised to add the huge machine wrench and electrical sparking effects. West intentionally hands the wrench to MetalHead, who grabs it with both hands and raises it to strike; he then shorts-out with electrical sparking effects before falling out the door. I believe the implication is that, when MetalHead grabbed the wrench with both hands, it completed an exposed electrical circuit that caused him to quickly short-out.

Charles Austin Miller

Question: What kind of gun does Vincent use on his first two targets? There are no gunshots heard before the guy falls on Max's taxi. Did he use the Ruger MK II used later on in the Jazz Club?

Question: If Jack thinks the room is the whole world and that space surrounds the room, where does he think Old Nick is coming from when he walks in the door?

Answer: He's a five-year-old child and lives in a very structured, controlled, and unnatural environment. He isn't capable at that age to really begin questioning how and why something should or shouldn't be. He believes what he is told.

raywest Premium member

Well, except when Joy tells him that something outside Room exists and he doesn't believe what she tells him and immediately questions how that could be possible.

And that is certainly a starting age point of where a child will begin to have an ability to analyze and interpret their environment and question what they are told. They begin asking "why" to whatever they are told.

raywest Premium member

Question: Did they ever look at the hole in his pocket that the knife supposedly slipped out of?

Answer: If you're referring to the jurors, no. We see the entirety of their deliberations. If you're referring to the prosecution or defense, that is unknown. Given, however, that none of the jurors brought up the question, it's likely there was at least a check of his clothes to verify he had a hole in his pocket.

Given how easy it would be to simply tear a hole as an excuse, even if it was there, it wouldn't be much in the way of corroboration.

LorgSkyegon

Question: What was that black liquid that filled up the courtyard, and how did Mitchell die?

Answer: The liquid acts like tar leaving residue when it goes. It's toxic and or acidic as it destroys everything it touches. Mitchell I believe is the person who gets caught up the massive snare trap. So He could have been killed by the snare, the black liquid or just died from drowning in the liquid.

Ssiscool Premium member

Answer: In regard to the black liquid, it is some type of a (fictional) toxic, tar-like substance that kills instantly upon touching living organisms. Mitchell is killed during the assault on the capital. When Peeta experiences a flashback, he attempts to kill Katniss. Mitchell pounces on Peeta to protect her, but Peeta throws him off, and Mitchell gets caught up in netting from a pod. The others are unable to free Mitchell, and he dies as the black tar washes over him.

raywest Premium member

Question: How come Connie knew Michael killed Carlo, but she believed Fredo drowned?

MikeH

Answer: When Connie says the part about "Poor Fredo, drowned, but it was God's will...Michael, I love you. I'll always help you," she is really telling Michael that she knows he had Fredo killed, but she forgives him.

Answer: Fredo lived for a long time after his betrayal of the family, plus when their Mother died Michael hugged Fredo in front of everyone after Connie talked to him about forgiving Fredo. I believe that Connie believed that Michael had forgiven Fredo that day and it was an accident. Anthony was supposed to go with them that day and she is the one that stopped Anthony from going, so I also think that plays into why Connie believes it was an accident as well.

Answer: It's less that she believes it than that she chooses to believe it. In the first film, she's naive about Michael, her father, etc., and so doesn't understand the realpolitik behind Michael's killing of Carlo. By the third film she's become much more inured to the family business (as well as more cynical and world weary), and so accepts the "official" explanation for Fredo's death even though she knows, deep down, it isn't true.

I'd add that by the time of Fredo's death, Connie knew Michael had grown more powerful and was becoming more dehumanized. She feared him enough to know to never confront him directly. After her husband's execution, she knew that any disloyalty to the family would be severely punished. She was also totally dependent on him for money and would not risk losing that.

raywest Premium member

Question: What does V compare the people of England to during his TV broadcast?

Answer: Either to himself ("I, like many of you, enjoy the comfort of the everyday routine,") or saying that the people of England voted the dictatorial Suttler into power and that they are responsible for the state that the country is now in. ("Then again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.").

Friso94

Answer: Most likely because Jane convinced him to.

Friso94

Also Selvig and Jane want to understand the Einstein Rosen bridge. They think Thor might be helpful and they don't trust SHIELD. And Selvig is starting to think there is a connection between the weird science stuff and the Norse tales from his childhood.

I don't think so.

Jane convinced Erik that Thor likely had some knowledge of the phenomenon they had seen. The photos they recorded showed him within the Bifrost anomaly.

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.