Question: Why would Schultz and Candie risk their lives, and the lives of everyone around them, over a handshake?
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 Peter never question where the black suit came from and decide to keep it? Obviously as the film progressed, the symbiote started to influence him more, but in the beginning 1) He didn't wear it all the time; 2) He is aware that there is SOMETHING up with the suit (for example, when he looked in the mirror after the "damn door" scene and saw a vision and then quickly put the suit in the suitcase). I also know that the suit never triggered his spidey sense, but surely Peter at some point must have wondered "where did this suit come from and how is it boosting me physically?"
Answer: To be fair, he does take a sample of the suit to Dr. Connors to be analyzed, so he is showing some initiative into trying to find out what it is. But I always took it as a "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" situation for Peter. He knows that it came from somewhere, but given it seems to increase his power and has an intoxicating quality (as he says, it feels good when he's wearing it), he chooses not to question it too much. Remember, the suit becomes an addiction to Peter... and I can also tell you as someone who has had problems with severe addiction to alcohol and pills in the past, at a certain point you do stop questioning things because you're just craving the rush too much.
Question: A question about this movie and the book also: When Daisy first visits Gatsby's house, why is Gatsby insistent on making Klipspringer play the piano?
Answer: He wants to impress Daisy by showing authority and control.
Question: How realistic is Elliot's plan of building a new plane?
Answer: A flying version of the design about 1/2 scale was built and flown for the original 1965 film. It appears in several flying scenes in that movie, but tragically crashed during filming, killing stunt pilot Paul Mantz.
Answer: Completely realistic. As explained correctly in the film, the aerodynamic principles involved are valid. Given that the constructed aircraft would have oversized wing surface area and an excess of power available, it should fly. Disruption of the airflow over the top of the wing due to the passengers would be minimal. In the 1930's airshows featured multiple wing walkers atop much smaller and lower powered aircraft.
Answer: Stupidly unrealistic. The plane simply wouldn't fly with people hanging off its wings for a start.
There's a big difference between a single wing walker on a high lift biplane compared to 10 people hanging off the wings.
Search on "multiple wing walkers" and see a 160 hp biplane carrying 5 walkers. So, for the C-119 there is about 2894 square feet of wing area, call it 2000 after cut down. The PW R-4360 produces 3500 hp, but let's use only 30% of that to protect the cobbled airframe. 10 guys on the wings are going to disrupt airflow over about 12 square feet each leaving about 1880 square feet of unobstructed wing being driven by 1000 hp. 30 people on the wings would not stop it from flying.
Question: When the ancients return to Atlantis they are greeted by 2 star general O'Neill but later in that episode and the part 2 episode he only had one star on his uniform. This same thing happened in a SG-1 episode when Dr. Jackson became a prior for the Ori.
Question: Why didn't Stark and the government just hire Toomes and his guys? They could afford to do this, everyone's happy, no super villainy.
Answer: They wanted an internal department to handle the cleanup, in part to prevent any contractors holding onto alien technology (exactly like Toomes ended up doing). They probably could have applied for jobs in the Department of Damage Control, but it would have been for a lot less money than the contract they initially had to carry out the same work independently.
Answer: They were attempting to keep the alien technology from falling into the wrong hands, to avoid precisely what ends up happening; people using it for crime.
Question: Grandpa Evan ran away from his family when James was young and didn't know Florida but when he comes back he recognizes her, how?
Answer: Grandpa Evans was glad to meet family members he never knew existed. He didn't know Florida, but was simply glad to meet his daughter-in-law for the first time. It was simply emotional for him and Florida (more for Florida as this made her cry happily).
Thelma had told Grandpa Evans about the family when she met him before he met the family.
Question: Brian is noted as not believing in God. How could Brian not believe in God when, in this episode, he has dinner with Jesus who is the son of God?
Answer: Brian was skeptical that Jesus was who he said he was throughout the episode; this even after Jesus performed the "miracles" of turning people's food into hot fudge sundaes and enlarging Lois' breasts. Being atheist, Brian would also probably not believe that Jesus was the son of God; some Biblical scholars question whether or not the "real" Jesus actually claimed to be the son of God.
Question: When Jack is being arrested he tells Rose "I just borrowed it, I was gonna return it." Was he referring to the jacket or the necklace?
Answer: Jack admitting to stealing or borrowing the jacket is a vain attempt to show that it wasn't his and therefore the necklace wasn't his either. He can't explain away the necklace but he can sort of explain the jacket on a way that doesn't make him look as bad. Either way it all comes across as desperation. Rose seems to believe him a little but can't do anything about it, especially when a priceless necklace is involved.
Question: Why did they need the battery attached to the chair exactly? They were able to move around previously without being plugged into the wall, so why the sudden change of being unable to move without the battery?
Answer: A couple things I noticed, in the beginning a lot of times the cords are missing when we should see them, so perhaps Kirby is suppose to be plugged in the whole time. They made it clear he was plugged in as they were leaving, even though they also made it clear Toaster didn't need to be plugged in. But also, it could be the same as lacking a lunch. They could move around without being plugged in, but would still need power at some point the same way people would need to eat. Or because Kirby is doing the heavy work. In the book they made it clear the vacuum needed to be plugged in and was using extension cords at first as they rolled around outside, but they didn't make any indications the other appliances were still plugged in, but the other appliances couldn't move like the vacuum, and certainly not as freely as in the film.
Question: How realistic is the helicopter scene?
Answer: Fixing the helicopter while flying, not possible. Tilting the helicopter on its side, possible.
"Fixing the helicopter while flying, not possible" why is fixing a helicopter while flying not possible?
He would either be blown off or killed by the blades.
Question: Why did the ex husband kill his former mistress turned wife?
Answer: Nick used Angie to help fake his death, frame Libby, and collect the insurance money which would have gone to their son, Matty. It's unclear if Nick married Angie, who became Matty's legal guardian, but he needed her to gain access to the money. He certainly didn't love her, and once he fully controlled the money, he eliminated her, as she was a liability who could have exposed him. I agree with the other answer that it also simplifies the plot by killing off a secondary character. It also shows how devious, ruthless, and sociopathic Nick is.
Answer: I don't think they explained it, but most likely for her insurance money which is the same reason Nick faked his death in the first place. But it's also possible her death was faked as well. Looking at it from the prospective of the writer, it seemed it was easier to kill her off or get rid of her somehow instead of her showing up at the end with Nick and there wouldn't be a way for Libby to kill her without facing jail time for it and it wouldn't make sense for Libby to just forgive her and let her go.
Angie's death wasn't faked. It was established and verified by the next-door-neighbor lady that she was killed in the house explosion while Nick and Maddy were conveniently away. Libby also researched old newspaper articles about the accident and the ensuing investigation. The articles also showed photos of the now-dead Angie.
Question: Given that the crime is murder why is she paroled after only six years?
Answer: She apparently was convicted in a jurisdiction that used indeterminate (not determinate) sentencing, allowed a life sentence to be "with the possibility of parole" and sentencing philosophy of "let the punishment fit the criminal (not the crime). " When there is no mandatory minimum number of years to be served in prison, a convicted murderer (of various°) could actually serve relatively few years in prison with the remainder of the sentence served outside of prison (such as in a halfway house or residential treatment center, or in her own home under electronic monitoring) provided the offender does not violate the conditions of release. An offender receiving a sentence of "life imprisonment", for example, could serve the first several years in prison and then be released to a halfway house to continue "serving time" outside of prison (with supervision). The years served "in the community" are still "time served" under the sentence - only the location of serving it has changed.
Answer: To start, this film gets a lot wrong about the judicial system and law (including the whole idea that Libby can freely kill Nick because she's already been convicted of his murder). In the film, they just say she's charged with murder, but never what degree. In Washington State, 2nd degree murder generally carries a sentence of 10-18 years (not including felony-murder). However, Washington State did not offer parole at the time of the film like other states did. To be released, she'd have a hearing in front of the Washington State Clemency and Pardons Board, not a Parole Board. And it's unlikely they'd grant her a release. But in Texas for example, she could possibly get parole after serving at least half her sentence.
Question: Given she leaves the state while on parole, possessing a firearm, holding her ex at gunpoint, how does Libby avoid prosecution for these offenses?
Answer: Because there were exceptional and extenuating circumstances and, technically, Libby was never guilty of the crime she was convicted of and had to resort to extreme measures to prove her innocence. She may have had a gun, but it could never be proved that she held Nick at gunpoint, only that she shot him in self defense. Also, it's a movie, which often are unrealistic regarding details like that.
Question: In the last shot of the knight waving goodbye to the Joneses, is it just me or has the actor been swapped out with a dummy?
Answer: It is the real actor and not a robotic dummy. He moves a bit slowly and deliberately, apparently for effect, but it's a real person.
Just to be clear, I'm not referring to when we see the knight raise his hand to wave goodbye to them, but rather right after Indy says "Please Dad," and he and Henry begin to flee the collapsing temple, you can see the knight in the background with his arm raised and he looks rather stiff. You can see it at around 2:22 of this clip: https://youtu.be/PAfZ7V2VyD8.
I took a closer look. There is the shot where the knight raises his hand and you can see him moving. It then cuts to Indy and Henry, then a cut back to the knight where it briefly looks like it could be a mannequin, then there is another cut and back to the knight again and this time it's definitely the live actor. So yes, for that brief long shot, I think it could be a dummy. This may have been for the purpose of efficiency in the filming, it being easier to use a stationary prop for doing multiple takes, rather than the live actor just standing there. Sometimes they do what is called "pick up" shots, where, post-production, a part of a scene or close-ups are re-shot or added weeks or months later, and it would just be easier to use mannequin rather than recall the actor.
But he does move, so most likely a real person.
Question: Is the Canyon of the Crescent Moon a real place, or was the shot of the canyon as seen from Donovan's binoculars just a place created for the film?
Chosen answer: The Canyon of the Crescent Moon is fictional, but based on the real entrance to the Treasury (Al Khazna). The Bab as-Sīq is the wide valley leading to the Sīq, the narrow gorge entry.
Question: Why wasn't Erickson punished for being out of tune and not knowing it? Also, what would Fletcher have done if Metz said he was out of tune?
Answer: Erickson isn't punished because, in Fletcher's mind, the greater sin is not being out of tune, or even of not admitting to it, but of not knowing it...Erickson knew he was out of tune (or at least, Fletcher thinks he did), so Fletcher let it slide. As to the second questions...do you mean, if Metz had said that Erickson was out of tune (because he does say he, himself, is)? Given Fletcher's personality and volatile nature, it's hard to say...he might have respected Metz for being able to identify who was out of tune, or he may have been even angrier at him for being a snitch. Probably the only person who can say for sure is Damien Chazelle. But I don't think there was anything Metz could have said in that moment that would have saved him.
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.
Answer: Schultz finds Candie to be a vile human being and being forced to shake his hand to seal the deal is just too much for him to accept. Candie never had any idea that Schultz would shoot him so he's not really risking anything in his mind. Candie is simply gloating over his opponent.
BaconIsMyBFF