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: When Lyle is at his desk, he has two newspapers in front of him and he is circling the same stock on both of them. One newspaper is for the year he's currently in, 1929. The second one is from 2004. How could stocks from the same newspaper 75 years apart possibly be helpful in getting McComb to the presidency?
Answer: Also, it was strongly implied that Lyle Atwood was in New York City shortly after the massive Wall Street crash that occurred in October of 1929, so all he would need to do is find stocks that still exist and are doing well in 2004 and buy those particular stocks when they're presumably at their lowest value in history; the payoff after 75 years would be astronomical for the stockholder.
Answer: Any stock that massively increased in value between 1929 and 2004 would be a great investment for a time traveller, providing vast quantities of wealth to help fund a presidential campaign, for example.
Question: When Hulk has the Infinity Gauntlet, Tony tells Hulk to snap back everybody that Thanos killed. Why not just snap Thanos and his army first and then snap half the world's population back to life? If Thanos had been snapped first, then they wouldn't have to worry about him anymore.
Answer: It's important to remember Tony's motivation as well. He was reluctant to even try because he now had a daughter and didn't want to risk losing her or Pepper. When he reminds Banner, he tells him not to try anything other than bringing everyone back in the present because he doesn't want him to rewrite history, potentially removing his daughter.
Answer: No guarantees they'd get two goes at it. They likely figured it was more important to bring everyone back and hope they can take on Thanos conventionally. Although if I remember rightly, they have no idea Thanos is back before they snap anyway - last they heard they'd chopped his head off, end of story.
Question: At the beginning of the film, why was Guy Fawkes attempting to burn down the Houses of Parliament and what led to his capture?
Answer: Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators wanted to assassinate King James I by blowing up the House of Lords while the king was there. Their goal was to improve the position of Catholics in the predominantly Protestant England, because an anonymous letter was sent to one of the lords, detailing the plot. Fawkes was in charge of guarding the explosives that were already in place when he was caught on the site, hence why he is the most famous one.
Question: What city and state do the movies take place in?
Answer: A fictional location in the San Francisco Bay Area referred to as "Tri-County Area." - says google.
Question: When Obi-wan Kenobi goes to the planet to fight General Grievous alone, shortly after he arrives he is in two places at once. He is sitting back in his ship talking to his droid before leaving and yet seconds later he has never left the planet. Can this be explained?
Question: Why would the Trade Federation need the queen to sign a treaty to make their invasion legal if they've already invaded the place and taken over anyway?
Question: What did Rooney mean when he told Grace to "go soak your head"?
Answer: It's an old insult, somewhat equivalent to 'buzz off'.
Question: Why didn't Hulk use the Infinity Gauntlet to snap Thanos and his army? He was able to snap everybody that Thanos killed and survived, so he would have survived another snap.
Answer: The gauntlet fell off after his first snap, then Thanos arrived from the past and destroyed the building, separating them. Hulk never got near the gauntlet and the stones during the ensuing battle, so he didn't have an opportunity to try a second snap to destroy Thanos.
Really what they should have done was pulled the stones off the gauntlet and separated them again, and not run around with a fully assembled and powered up Gauntlet for Thanos to grab.
I agree.
That would mean they had to touch them, and nobody besides Hulk, Thor and Carol could touch one without dying.
Ordinary humans can't just grab an infinity stone. Even when Thanos takes the power stone out of gauntlet you see it start to destroy them.
Only the Power Stone has been shown to kill normal people who try to hold it. Hawkeye literally held the Soul Stone in his hand in this movie.
Because he made the necessary sacrifice. Anyone else touching it, big problem. Could be an exception though. The power, reality and space gems have been proven to be untouchable and killing anyone who does (with exceptions though). Time gem is very carefully handled as well so I wouldn't touch that one either. Mind gem, who knows?
I don't recall the Time Stone killing anyone who touched it. The only example I can think of was the Red Skull presumably being killed when he handled the Tesseract, but was in actuality teleported to Vormir. The Reality Stone has a will of its own, so someone could feasibly handle it without harm. You're wonder about the Mind Stone is correct, as no human character was shown in any movie to have handled it directly. Overall though, I would say that I disagree with someone trying to remove a stone from the gauntlet, as one stone could easily be lost, and Thanos could still kill every hero at the battle even with one or more stones missing.
The reality stone attaches itself to anyone touching it like a parasite and slowly kills them. I'd say it's a bad idea to touch it. As for the time stone only the ancient one and Hulk actually touched it and there is reason Strange handles it carefully and without touching it. As for the Red skull, don't really know if he is really alive on Vormir. Who knows what the tesseract did to him?
Whether or not Red Skull is still alive is an interesting topic, but either way, I'd argue that while the Tesseract transported him, it itself is not what made him in his current state, but rather his curse to guard the Soul Stone and the planet of Vormir itself, as it is a dominion of death as Nebula stated.
Question: Why does Baroness Bomburst hate children?
Answer: Caractucus Potts uses the Baroness character in the story he tells his kids to add tension and fright. The Baroness is a spoiled, selfish, narcissist whose only true love in the world is the rich and powerful Baron. She probably did not want children in her life with the Baron to distract her from enjoying and indulging in the power and riches she shares with the Baron, and she projects that onto other people who have children. Children, to her, are a huge distraction from her cushy life. Or, she hates children because she cannot have any of her own due to medical reasons, thus, she figures if she cannot have them, then nobody in the village can have them, so the children that are around are in hiding. The movie makes no mention as to why the Baroness hates children, so leaves that up to speculation by the viewer, unless the original book version has her backstory.
Question: How could Bellatrix possibly have recognised Neville?
Answer: She's seen a picture? Been given his description? There are any number of possibilities.
Answer: I'd say this is a deliberate movie mistake to provide plot exposition. Bellatrix was one of the Death Eaters who tortured Neville's parents into permanent insanity when Neville was a young boy. It's unlikely Bellatrix would recognize Neville on sight, but this reveals her involvement in the Longbottom family tragedy, and shows that Neville fighting Voldemort and the Death Eaters is personally motivated.
Answer: He looks like his father, wears similar clothes.etc.
Question: Spider-Man: Far From Home shows that people snapped back after the "blip" come back in exactly the same place they disappeared from - mid-band performance, for example, and getting a basketball to the head as a result. Have the makers of either movie expanded on the ramifications of this? Because people snapped off a flight for example, might reappear mid-air...but with no plane, so plummet to their deaths.
Answer: Kevin Feige said in a Reddit thread that Hulk specifically brought everyone back in a safe place.
Chosen answer: The makers haven't said anything that I have heard, but we can see and deduce a couple things. First, if you watch the band members disappear, then the reappearance, those that reappear are not at the locations of those that disappeared (note the two videos are 90° off from each other), meaning either some compensation happened in Stark's invocation, or the filmmakers made a mistake in their portrayal. Second, we don't hear anyone in the movie make any comment about such problems so that implies the blip-ending had a compensation for such events so they didn't happen, though to prevent calamity, not simple harm. If you take this issue to the extreme, the planet is no longer where it was, plus has spun on its axis, so if no compensation occurred, everyone would have reappeared in space millions of miles away from the planet's new location, which they didn't.
Question: How was Billy considered "worthy" to begin with? When we first meet him, he is petulant, selfish, and cruel to anyone that wants to help him. Once he does get the power of Shazam, he becomes even more selfish, petty, and reckless.
Answer: He went out of his way to protect his new foster brother, who's disabled mind you, when he was being picked on by the Steven King novel bullies. He showed he had some virtue. And, on top of that, his other behavior, like stealing the police car, while bad, did have a noble reason behind it of him trying to find his mother. So he wasn't perfect, but he had some virtue. And, as the old wizard said, he was out of time and Billy was his last choice.
Answer: In addition to the other answer, it's also a pretty common trope in films, stories, etc. for a character who is imperfect to be considered "worthy" or "pure of heart" not because of their actions but because of their potential to learn from their mistakes and do great things when given power. Billy is actually a pretty good example of this - he's brash and a bit selfish, but ultimately proves to be a capable hero by learning from his mistakes and growing as a person, thus ultimately becoming worthy of the power.
Question: What was the point of Kint using names on the wall and coffee cup if he already had a story he told to the DA that checked out? He started using them before Kujan found out about the person Keyser Soze.
Answer: Kint (Keyser Soze) was toying with the cops, using names within the interrogation room to see if the cops were really paying attention, who were so engrossed in the story of Keyser Soze they did not see what Kint was doing or the clues being offered to them, such as throwing out unrelated bits about him being in a barber shop quartet in Skokie, Illinois, which was on the dry-erase board in the interrogation room. That the cops did not get the clues until after he was released and escaped much later demonstrated how Keyser Soze could control whatever situation he was in, including outsmarting experienced veteran police detectives.
Question: Whenever Bruce transforms into the Hulk, why is he always in his underwear? Other versions of the Hulk depict him in full pants so why would Bruce's pants also rip along with his clothes when transforming into the Hulk, leaving him only in his underwear? Maybe this was due to the fact that the crew wanted to make the Hulk more stronger and more bigger in this film.
Answer: First, he isn't always in his underwear. In one transformation he's in purple pants, and in another he's completely nude. As to why, it's likely because the filmmakers realised it's unrealistic that Bruce would always be wearing pants that could withstand the radical change in size. Also, as we see the hulk grows larger physically when he becomes more angry, and at some point no fabric will stay in place.
Question: How did Matrix know that the gun store had a hidden room full of illegal weapons such as automatic rifles, rocket launchers, and anti-personnel mines? There isn't any dialogue explaining how he knew the room was there and how he knew the general location of the hidden switch to open the room.
Answer: You are right that there is no reason given in the movie so any answer would be speculation. One possibility is it is a secret government (or criminal) arms cache which can be accessed in times of emergency and Matrix is connected enough to know about it.
He might have heard about it through the grapevine as gun guys talk. Notice how he fumbles around for the switch? That and the surprised look on his face when he walks into the secret room says he had never been in there before but had enough knowledge to know there was one.
Answer: Most likely knew the store owner's tendencies or a scene cut from the movie that would have filled in the missing information.
Question: What happened to Paolo after he was left to the paparazzi?
Answer: No one knows for sure, but he likely lost his career and faced a lot of lifelong humiliation as have previously singers who were found to be secretly lip syncing to someone else's voice.
Question: The Monsignor Martinez - in addition to being a priest, is he supposed to be a vigilante? Or a mercenary?
Answer: I get the impression he's some sort of master criminal, though the specific details are left up to the viewer's imagination.
Question: The game in Houston is only 4 innings. If it almost got called after 2 innings, it's obviously pressed for time. Although called safe for the win, if Kelly was called out at home plate at the end of the 4th, the game would have ended in a tie. No extra innings would be allowed for sure this time due to time factor, so how would a winning team be determined to play in Japan?
Answer: 1) The Bears HAD to win in order to go to Japan and thus a tie would mean the Toros played Japan (like a champion retaining his title after a draw in a title fight). Or 2) They played a 2nd game at a later time.
Question: This might be a silly question but it did puzzle me just a little bit. The old man in the film, when Phil first starts to care for him he starts referring to him as Dad and Pops. Is there supposed to be any actual relation between them, or is he just referring to him as this as sort of a kind title?
Answer: I think he is just using them as terms of elderly respect. It would be pretty callous even for Phil to completely disregard the homeless man at the beginning of the film if he was some sort of relative. The old man also does nothing to indicate a shared history between them.
It was a common term that was often used in the early-to-mid 20th century where a kindly, older man would affectionately be referred to as "Pops." In movies of that era, there was often a minor character referred to in this way, particularly if no-one knew his name (i.e. the stage doorman, the custodian, etc).
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: McComb paid Fielding to do whatever he wanted her to do for him. She provides protection, follows his orders, passes on useful information about TEC, etc.
raywest ★