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: In one of the final game scenes, one of the Notre Dame players has the name Favreau on the back of his jersey. Since no player on that team was named Favreau, was this done for John Favreau?

Answer: Yes, it was. In that scene the names on the jerseys are from the actors and crew.

BaconIsMyBFF

Question: What song are Melio and Barf playing at the piano museum?

Answer: It's called Heart And Soul. Also known for the big piano scene in the movie Big.

lartaker1975

Question: Did I imagine it, or does Letty appear with a beard but no moustache at one point in the movie?

Answer: No.

Question: How did Van Pelt control animals without "Jaguar's Eye"?

Answer: He had absorbed the power from the "Jaguar's Eye."

Question: When Bond hands Moneypenny the photo before he leaves, he writes "From Russia With Love" on it. Would this be another in a series of Bond sight gags, similar to stopping the bomb timer at "007" seconds in "Goldfinger"?

Movie Nut

Chosen answer: It would, yes. Also I am to understand that it's his sense of humour.

Alan Keddie

Question: How come they stopped with this movie and didn't make any more?

THE GAMER NEXT DOOR

Answer: There's a plethora of reasons, as others have said. This film had a relatively large budget (projected between $200-$290 million depending on the source), but was the lowest-grossing film of the franchise, bringing in only about $700 million worldwide when it was expected to be a potential billion-dollar film. Critical reception was lukewarm at best, and fan-reception was very mixed, whereas most of the previous films were received very positively. (Even "Spider-Man 3" fared better in general with critics and fans.) Andrew Garfield was having issues with the studio and executives, and rumor has it that he was possibly going to be fired after showing signs of disrespect towards Sony. (In part because Garfield had serious issues with them for interfering with the production of both "Amazing Spider-Man" films and making demands/undermining the story to set-up future films.) There were already a lot of issues building up behind the scenes because Sony was hoping to use this film to set up about a half-dozen more sequels and spin-offs, and they panicked when it wasn't the huge hit they hoped for. Finally, talks began with Marvel/Disney after its release, and Sony opted to reboot and "share" the character with Disney so Spidey could join the MCU.

Answer: Actually, the timeline is a bit more muddled, since serious talks with Marvel and Disney about the rights to Spider-Man didn't really take off until after this movie bellyflopped at the box office. That's when Marvel offered them the shared custody that ultimately resorted in Spider-Man:Homecoming, where it's Marvel that has the final say in the creative process.

Friso94

Answer: Reviews and box office returns weren't up to studio expectations. In addition, the director and Andrew Garfield both expressed not wanting to return to the series. Those, combined with talks to Marvel, resulted in the franchise stalling.

Greg Dwyer

Question: How come they stopped with this movie and didn't make any more?

THE GAMER NEXT DOOR

Answer: There's a plethora of reasons, as others have said. This film had a relatively large budget (projected between $200-$290 million depending on the source), but was the lowest-grossing film of the franchise, bringing in only about $700 million worldwide when it was expected to be a potential billion-dollar film. Critical reception was lukewarm at best, and fan-reception was very mixed, whereas most of the previous films were received very positively. (Even "Spider-Man 3" fared better in general with critics and fans.) Andrew Garfield was having issues with the studio and executives, and rumor has it that he was possibly going to be fired after showing signs of disrespect towards Sony. (In part because Garfield had serious issues with them for interfering with the production of both "Amazing Spider-Man" films and making demands/undermining the story to set-up future films.) There were already a lot of issues building up behind the scenes because Sony was hoping to use this film to set up about a half-dozen more sequels and spin-offs, and they panicked when it wasn't the huge hit they hoped for. Finally, talks began with Marvel/Disney after its release, and Sony opted to reboot and "share" the character with Disney so Spidey could join the MCU.

Answer: Actually, the timeline is a bit more muddled, since serious talks with Marvel and Disney about the rights to Spider-Man didn't really take off until after this movie bellyflopped at the box office. That's when Marvel offered them the shared custody that ultimately resorted in Spider-Man:Homecoming, where it's Marvel that has the final say in the creative process.

Friso94

Answer: Reviews and box office returns weren't up to studio expectations. In addition, the director and Andrew Garfield both expressed not wanting to return to the series. Those, combined with talks to Marvel, resulted in the franchise stalling.

Greg Dwyer

Question: How come they stopped with this movie and didn't make any more?

THE GAMER NEXT DOOR

Answer: There's a plethora of reasons, as others have said. This film had a relatively large budget (projected between $200-$290 million depending on the source), but was the lowest-grossing film of the franchise, bringing in only about $700 million worldwide when it was expected to be a potential billion-dollar film. Critical reception was lukewarm at best, and fan-reception was very mixed, whereas most of the previous films were received very positively. (Even "Spider-Man 3" fared better in general with critics and fans.) Andrew Garfield was having issues with the studio and executives, and rumor has it that he was possibly going to be fired after showing signs of disrespect towards Sony. (In part because Garfield had serious issues with them for interfering with the production of both "Amazing Spider-Man" films and making demands/undermining the story to set-up future films.) There were already a lot of issues building up behind the scenes because Sony was hoping to use this film to set up about a half-dozen more sequels and spin-offs, and they panicked when it wasn't the huge hit they hoped for. Finally, talks began with Marvel/Disney after its release, and Sony opted to reboot and "share" the character with Disney so Spidey could join the MCU.

Answer: Actually, the timeline is a bit more muddled, since serious talks with Marvel and Disney about the rights to Spider-Man didn't really take off until after this movie bellyflopped at the box office. That's when Marvel offered them the shared custody that ultimately resorted in Spider-Man:Homecoming, where it's Marvel that has the final say in the creative process.

Friso94

Answer: Reviews and box office returns weren't up to studio expectations. In addition, the director and Andrew Garfield both expressed not wanting to return to the series. Those, combined with talks to Marvel, resulted in the franchise stalling.

Greg Dwyer

Special Funnel - S4-E11

Question: It is explained Peter Sam's funnel was damaged when he crashed. How did the crash damage his funnel?

Question: Have the filmmakers offered any explanation as to why they used CGI for Wolverine's claws in the bathroom scene? As has been pointed out numerous times, the CGI is very poor. Given that the previous three X-Men films used practical claws that looked just fine, this seemed like a very impractical thing to do, especially considering the extra time and money going with CGI would require.

Serious B Premium member

Question: When Harry, Ron and Hermione arrive at the Lovegood house, why do they all sigh Luna's name?

THE GAMER NEXT DOOR

Answer: Luna has an odd, quirky personality and does not interact well with people or view life as others normally do. Harry likes her, but she tries his patience. Ron does not particularly like her, and both he and Hermione generally avoided her at Hogwarts, even though she was a member of Dumbledore's Army. Harry, Ron, and Hermione know they need help from Luna's father. He, too, is rather eccentric, and the three are just preparing themselves for what the coming interaction is going to be like.

raywest Premium member

Question: I'm having troubles reconciling few things. In no particular order, here are my questions: a) The shotgun scene didn't make any sense. I guess the "surprise" is that it fires when you release not when you pull it, but it just seems like one of those things where you duck and tell the other guy to duck and then unscrew it while ducking. b) So, John is given one last bullet and asked if he'd like to kill one more time. So, lets say Amanda actually does what she's told and doesn't kill Lynn. Isn't John going to kill her anyway since that was his intent? c) Likewise, how would Lynn have not told John about her collar? You'd think that it'd be the first thing she'd mention to him or you'd think it'd be something he might want to ask about. This, of course, then becomes a bigger deal because if he knows he can't kill Jigsaw without killing his wife, then he probably doesn't and everything has a happy ending. To me, it would've been cool if she had no way to tell him but was trying really hard to and he just ignored her and killed him anyway. d) Was it considered Amanda's choice then to have timers so short to make things "unwinnable"? The characters seemed to basically "win" every time but just couldn't within the time allotted. Presuming that is the case, how could an obsessive guy like Jigsaw not see and evaluate everything? How could he not be the ones watching videos of everything? I get that it was a test for Amanda, but since he objected to "murder" so much, then how could he knowingly allow her to murder?

Answer: A) The judge was preoccupied with Timothy's predicament and Jeff was preoccupied with the rifle, so he may not have noticed the judge was in the line of fire. B) Jeff didn't know Lynn was also being held captive until he witnessed Amanda shoot her. Him shooting Amanda in retaliation was a knee-jerk reaction. Had he walked into the room and seen Lynn alive and well, it may have caused him to let his guard down long enough for Jigsaw to explain everything. Then again, like you said, he just may have killed Amanda anyway. C) Lynn actually was trying to tell Jeff about her predicament, but she could barely speak after being shot and bleeding out, plus Jeff was mainly focused on Jigsaw. D) Jigsaw was extremely ill and weak at this point. He probably didn't have much oversight on Amanda's work. In all likelihood, he learned about her transgressions from Hoffman.

Serious B Premium member

Question: When Obadiah Price's son talks to J about how he was "there" and you'll tell him all about it what did he mean?

Answer: J asked why he remembers K when no one else does and Price says J remembers K because J was in 1969. One of the things with time travel is that effect can precede cause, meaning J was in 1969 before J travelled to 1969. Then Price says he wants J to tell him all about it when he gets back to the present.

Bishop73

Possibly but when talking time travel, theories expound endlessly. Your explanation generally fits the events, or how they're authored to occur, but it's almost too simplistic. I believe that it is impossible for effect to precede cause... At least not without a break. To me, for time travel to exist and be possible, it would require endless loops or time-lines. Essentially that the moment you go back in time and make any change, which could be almost impossible not to, you break the original timeline thus creating a new one. Only then, could effect precede cause imho. It's the butterfly 'effect' :) or the ripples in the pond theory. Even then, I'm not sure that effect could ever precede causation. Your thoughts?

I purposely kept the answer simple since most movies with time travel don't go into much details about how time travel is possible and all the consequences, etc., especially in comedies. Plus there tend to be plot holes left when only partially explained. There was a saying I heard in passing in regards to writing science-fiction (so I don't know who said it or the exact quote), "it's better to have unexplained science than faulty science." One example of effect preceding cause is "tachyons", a hypothetical particle that travels faster than light. As such, a tachyon fired from point A to point B would reach point B before it was fired, due to special relativity. I personally don't subscribe to this theory and say if it was to occur, the tachyon would simple arrive before a particle of light would. I don't believe time travel into the past is possible, so as long as a movie is consistent, I don't think there's anything wrong with picking a closed time loop over an alternate time loop.

Bishop73

Question: At the end of the movie, why did Stuart take Kim with him? Why not run alone?

Bunch Son

Answer: Stuart was planning on using Kim as a leverage over Brian and the authorities, presumably as a hostage.

BaconIsMyBFF

Question: When Malankov is lying at the stairs and Bryan aims a gun at him, Bryan said "You killed my ex-wife. But you're not gonna kill my daughter." and then Malankov said "Your daughter?" then he muttered something. What exactly did he say?

Bunch Son

Answer: He says "S***! We are f***** by the same man."

Bishop73

I'm asking about what he exactly said before saying "We are f*** by the same man." And he definitely didn't say "S-h-i-t"

Bunch Son

Question: Why did the Tsarnaev brothers have Dun Meng go with them when they take his car? Why didn't they just take it and leave Dun Meng behind?

Answer: As an insurance policy to escape. Since they had just confessed to him that they were the marathon bombers, they had no reason to believe that he wouldn't go the police the moment they were out of sight.

Cubs Fan Premium member

Question: When they promote the fight, why do they say January 1st is America's birthday?

John K

Answer: They mean the entire year, 1976, is America's birth "day," being the bicentennial of the Declaration of Independence. So the fight, taking place on January 1, is the "first sporting event on our two hundredth birthday."

Sheep Thrills - S2-E10

Question: How come Drake only gets a D- on a test when the score is 87%? Shouldn't that be an A?

THE GAMER NEXT DOOR

Answer: First, an 87% on a test would be a "B." But Drake says that test bumps his overall class grade to a 66, which is the "D-" they're talking about (before the test Drake was failing, so his overall grade was a 59 or lower). Although a "D-"is typically a 60-62 and a 66 would be just a plain "D."

Bishop73

Question: Does Bill know that Elle poisoned Pei Mai? Pei Mai was Bill's master, and I highly doubt he would have approved of him being murdered in such a disrespectful way, but Elle was still on good terms with Bill which is evident from their phone conversation.

Answer: Since the film itself does not answer this question, any answer would be speculation at best. It is highly unlikely that Elle would tell Bill about it-she also murdered his brother, and lied about that, too-and since she was the only witness, he couldn't have heard it from anyone else.

Question: After the Reliant ambushes the Enterprise, Kirk tricks Khan and hammers the Reliant into retreat. As Kirk turns to assess damage to the Enterprise, Scotty inexplicably appears on the bridge, carrying the charred body of Midshipman Peter Preston. Why on earth would Scotty bring the dying Preston to the bridge, rather than to SickBay with all the other injured? He had to deliberately bypass SickBay just to make an unnecessary appearance on the bridge.

Charles Austin Miller

Answer: I believe Preston was already dead at that point. An earlier scene was edited out of the film that explained Preston was Scotty's nephew (his sister's son), and which may account for Scotty's rather odd reaction of first bringing him to the bridge.

raywest Premium member

Yet Preston is shown alive (still dying) in the SickBay moments later. Preston shares last words with Captain Kirk before he actually dies. So, this is a case of bad editing?

Charles Austin Miller

What was edited out of the film was an earlier explanation that Preston was Scotty's nephew-this was way before the Enterprise was attacked.

raywest Premium member

These scenes, which include several of Preston's lines which were cut, were restored in the 2002 Director's Edition. Curiously, when the film is aired on TV they still run the original video cut which has the scenes removed. The editing is really sloppy with the scenes cut out and the scenes establishing that Preston is Scotty's nephew add another emotional layer to the film. It makes Scotty's actions make so much more sense, he's overcome with grief over his nephew and anger at Khan. With the scenes cut what Scotty does makes very little sense.

BaconIsMyBFF

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.