Question: Harry having the resurrection stone makes the ending make sense if that is the way that he survives/comes back from death when Voldemort kills him. But he drops the stone after talking to his dead loved ones. How does Harry survive if, as Dumbledore says, he HAS to die to kill Voldemort? Pretending to be dead shouldn't work, so he must actually die, right? (02:13:00)
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: Most of the characters on this show are male. Why is that?
Answer: Female characters in literature, movies, television, etc. are commonly and historically less prevalent than male ones. It's an inherit gender bias that continues to exist within male-dominated industries. This same bias exists against characters of color and other orientations.
It's also a really old show that would've been fairly male run.
Question: If Voldemort is now controlling the Ministry of Magic, why does Dolores Umbridge have a position there? In Order of the Phoenix, she refused to believe that he had returned. I wonder why he didn't kill her for opposing him.
Answer: Umbridge was an opportunistic collaborator, and once Voldemort took power, she became complicit in order to advance her own career. She never opposed Voldemort, she, like many others, simply believed he had been killed years before.
She never opposed Voldemort because she was allied with him.
Answer: She refused to acknowledge it openly, that doesn't mean she didn't believe it, or hope for it.
She knew that he returned, but was allied with him all along.
Question: When Obi-Wan tells Luke about Darth Vader murdering his father, Luke doesn't seem to have heard of Vader before. But he knows about the rebellion and wants to go to the Imperial Academy (so he can defect later). Shouldn't he know who Vader is?
Answer: For most of his early life, Luke lived a simple, rustic life. His aunt and uncle knew his parentage and no doubt suppressed information about the Empire from him. Luke is naive and still has a limited and generalized knowledge of the rebellion, most of which was gleaned from talking to friends. He has little awareness of who the key players are.
Answer: Remember that Luke was hidden on Tatooine as a baby, and Obiwan also went into hiding there, presumably as a protector to keep Luke's very existence a secret from Darth Vader. It could be that Obiwan remotely exercised Jedi mind-tricks on Luke throughout his young life to block any curiosity about Vader.
Question: Why did C-3PO go with them to Geonosis? I always figured protocol droids stayed with their masters unless they were sold?
Erika Tiffany Smith to the Rescue - S2-E15
Question: I'm very confused about the ending. During an interview, the interviewer says that the Navy are unable to find the castaways because Erika's log book is written in English translated from Hungarian. If her log book was translated from Hungarian to English, then how could the Navy be unable to use it to find the island and rescue everybody? She left out latitude and longitude but, there must have been something in the log book to give an idea of where the island was.
Answer: Hungarian-to-English translation aside, Erika's log-book entries were utterly meaningless. When the radio interviewer expresses confusion, Erika even reads entries from the log: "You take a left at a big, beautiful, pink tropical flower, then pull over and park," and "After the storm, we backed up and made a U-turn," etc. Her directions were scatterbrained, to put it nicely. Additionally, Erika's yacht was forced to leave the island during a tropical storm, and they lost their bearings for several days before the Navy found them. Given that Erika was such a scatterbrain, we might also assume that she didn't hire the most competent yacht crew, either.
Question: Why are Jim (Dean Jones), Carol (Michelle Lee) and Tennessee (Buddy Hackett) not back for this sequel?
Question: When the present/future is altered, what was purpose of Jack, Sam, and Daniel going to recruit Teal'c? Was it just to recreate SG-1 so they could begin going on off-world missions? Did they even have a plan to fix the past/present (prior to Daniel being killed and they jumped back in time)? Then at the end, when the tape said there's no fish in the pond, wouldn't that Jack (Jack #3 if you will) already know there are in fact fish in his pond (since whatever changes to the past that affected the pond would also affect Jack #3)?
Question: When Jason's mom arrived what did the sign say?
Answer: If you're talking about the sign the driver was holding, it's just says "Mrs. Taylor", which is her last name.
Question: I may be wrong but although Joe wasn't introduced until later in the season, the picture of Kailey Jacobs was actually Gia Mantegna and not Ariel Winter, right?
Question: How did Riddle know that the people the Basilisk was petrifying were muggle born? It sounds to me like Ginny was his best shot at knowing, but how could she know?
Answer: It's easy to tell which students are Muggle-born. They have little knowledge of the wizarding world and need special training, their parents are not wizards, and Hogwarts, being a small community, makes it easy to know everyone's background. Ginny would have little problem identifying which students Riddle should target.
Question: How accurately does the movie portray the Battle of Midway?
Answer: This is from Wikipedia: "Later studies by Japanese and American military historians call into question key scenes, like the dive-bombing attack that crippled the first Japanese carrier, the Akagi. In the movie, American pilots report, "They've got bombs all over their flight deck! We caught 'em flat-footed! No fighters and a deck full of bombs!" As Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully write in "Shattered Sword" (2005), aerial photography from the battle showed nearly empty decks. In addition, Japanese carriers loaded armament onto planes below the flight deck, unlike American carriers (as depicted earlier in the film). The fact that a closed hangar full of armaments was hit by bombs made damage to Akagi more devastating than if planes, torpedoes and bombs were on an open deck."
Question: Though Vanellope did say to Ralph that glitches can't leave their game, what is the explanation behind it? Why can't glitches ever leave their game? She never explained it.
Answer: It is never explained, but the most likely answer is that glitches aren't written into the game intentionally, and only characters intentionally written can be transferred in and out of games.
Question: Keanu Reeves appeared in heavy makeup for this film in the uncredited (yet prominent) supporting role of "Ortiz the Dog Boy," and most viewers were oblivious to Reeves' involvement in the movie for many years after its release. Inasmuch as Reeves had starred twice before in comedies with Alex Winter, I'm only guessing that this film's producers didn't want a "Bill and Ted" association to complicate or misdirect the film's marketing; but why exactly did Reeves go uncredited in "Freaked"?
Answer: Honestly, I think it was just a bit of fun for Reeves. It's really not uncommon for prominent actors to do uncredited roles and cameos in films. I've seen it happen before many times. And given that the director/co-writer/co-producer is his "Bill and Ted" co-star Alex Winter, I have serious doubts they were worried about any "Bill and Ted" association. (If anything that would have helped them at the box office.) It was probably a case of Reeves doing it as a favor for a friend, and they decided to have fun with it and keep him uncredited to see if anyone would figure it out.
Question: Why was Beetlejuice stuck inside the little town? Why couldn't he leave?
Answer: He'd gone outside the normal system for the afterlife and offered himself as a freelancer. His punishment was to be restricted to the model until someone said his name three times.
Question: How is it possible that Kelly got shot in the head two separate times and is still a private eye?
Answer: She had the kind of incredibly fortunate recoveries that only television writers can provide.
Question: Why would they make Anne Australian? Her nationality isn't even mentioned, so why would they let Abbie Cornish use her natural accent? What purpose does it serve? It seems like an incredibly random choice. Abbie Cornish has used an American accent in most of her roles, so of all the ones to use her natural accent, why would she use it in the one where it makes the least sense? Why would an Australian go to a small Ozarks Missouri town? I assume she stayed there because she met Bill and fell in love with him, but why would she have gone there in the first place, before she met Bill?
Answer: Since the movie doesn't tell us how she and Bill met, any answer about how and why she was there would be mere speculation. Letting an actress speak in her native accent is not exactly "random"; random would be if she was an American and the writer/director decided to make her character Australian. However, the situation of an Australian marrying someone from, and then living in, a small Missouri town is not as outlandish or nonsensical as one might think; I used to date someone from a tiny town in Kansas, whose mother was an upper-class British woman who happened to meet and marry someone from that town.
Question: When Patton arrives at corps headquarters, a lieutenant says they have a new commander due. What is he talking about? Was their previous commanding general fired?
Answer: Patton was put in charge of the American II Corps in North Africa after the Americans were badly defeated at the 1943 Battle of the Kasserine Pass. The lieutenant apparently does not realise that Patton has been sent to replace the previous commander and will begin enforcing strict discipline into the troops.
OK, but what about the other part of the question? Was their previous commanding general fired?
The previous commanding general was not "fired" he was replaced. It was Major General Lloyd Fredendall who was in command of the II Corps, at the Battle of Kasserine Pass. He was reassigned stateside, then about three months later was promoted to lieutenant general. For the rest of the war he was in command of training assignments in the US.
He was effectively "fired", as in removed, from his commanding position, due to his weak leadership, but that did not mean to say he was fired from the U.S. Army. The term "fired" is relative here.
I feel the need to clarify the point that my original reply was to the person who asked this question: "OK, but what about the other part of the question? Was their previous commanding general fired? " Please know that my reply was not meant to come off as butting heads with your answer, raywest, I was merely answering the submitter's question and acknowledging their use of the word "fired" within their question. But since you responded directly to my original reply, I'll respond. You state in your reply to me, "He was effectively "fired", as in removed, from his commanding position, due to his weak leadership, but that did not mean to say he was fired from the U.S. Army. The term "fired" is relative here." Okay, well I really don't agree with that, because I can't see the term "fired" as being relative here, IMO. In civilian life, when a civvie is "fired" from their job it means getting laid-off, being unemployed. To say a servicemember is "fired" from the military, it would basically mean being dishonorably discharged. The OP's question was regarding Lloyd Fredendall. After his reassignment, Major General Fredendall even received a promotion and became Lieutenant General Fredendall within a few months. Anyway, those are my personal thoughts on the matter. :) Be well, raywest. With warm regards, Rikki.
Not fired, just relieved of command and transferred elsewhere.
Question: Where does all the power for monitors and lights come from? I assume power is down, a diesel aggregate would be too loud and hydropower too weak. Solar cells?
Answer: While it's never directly addressed, one can see solar panels on the roof of the farm buildings at several points in the film.
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: The Resurrection Stone never had nothing to do with Harry surviving Voldemort's curse at the end. He survived because he carried one of Voldemort's horcruxes inside him, and that is what protected him. Dumbledore's prediction was wrong because he did not know until much later that Harry was one of Voldemort's horcruxes. Voldemort also did not know this, having accidentally creating it when he attempted to kill Harry when he was an infant.
raywest ★
That's not right either. Harry survived because Voldemort made the mistake of using Harry's blood in the potion he used to resurrect himself in Goblet of Fire, believing it would make him stronger, failing to realise that he was preserving the protection of Harry's mother's sacrifice within his own body, thus tethering Harry to life. It has nothing to do with the Resurrection Stone or the Horcrux within Harry.