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?
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: 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: Due to his poor performance at Kasserine, General Eisenhower sacked Major General Lloyd Fredendal (Patton's predecessor), and he was sent back home in disgrace, never to command combat troops ever again.
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.
Question: How is it that Han joins the empire at the beginning of Solo, and at the end Darth Maul appears in a hologram when Maul was killed in Phantom Menace, long before the rise of the empire and storm trooper army.
Answer: Not sure of the first question; This movie begins about 10 years before Episode 4. By then, the Empire is relying on conscripted soldiers as the Empire expands. Han simply enlists. For the second question, the answer is in the Clone Wars TV series: Maul didn't actually die, and even replaced his legs with cybernetic limbs.
Even this being true, Darth Maul was still killed by the end of the Clone Wars, which was still before the rise of the Empire, so being alive at the end and the Empire enlistment at the beginning does not fit with the timeline.
Answer: Official canon (Clone Wars TV show especially) establishes that Maul survived his encounter with Obi-Wan and comes back into relevancy during the Clone Wars, running crime syndicates and initiating war on Mandalore behind the scenes. Why he's still running Crimson Dawn in Solo is very strange, since his story arc in The Clone Wars and his own comic has all of his criminal allies abandon him (which is why Darth Maul is the way he is in Rebels). It's likely an oversight but has been someone patched up by season 7 of Clone Wars.
Answer: According to expanded universe materials, Darth Maul survived his encounter with Obi Wan Kenobi in The Phantom Menace. He goes on to build his own criminal empire. He has nothing at all to do with the rise of the Empire, in fact he is something of a rival to Palpatine. Solo takes place between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope. During this time period the Empire is relying on regular enlistments to make up the bulk of their army.
Hell Money - S3-E19
Question: At The End of the episode, why did Detective Chao place himself in the incinerator?
Answer: He didn't place himself there voluntarily. He mysteriously vanished from the hospital and awoke to find himself inside the incinerator. It appears this was punishment for his exposing that the lottery was rigged.
But, as a detective, it was his job to expose the rigging.
Chao didn't expose the rigged lottery as part of his job as a detective. He was already involved in the game and working for those in charge. He was paid to keep the game a secret from foreigners and his blood was found in Lo's apartment, meaning he was the mysterious figure that tells Lo he must pay. But despite Chao's involvement, he wanted the game to end. To me, it seems he smashed the vase out of anger, not because he knew it was rigged and was trying expose that fact. But regardless, that's what he seems to be punished for.
Thanks. It was really confusing.
Question: What happened to Dr. Terminus and Hoagy? Did they get arrested?
Answer: Although it's never seen, they were either arrested, left or were chased out of Passamaquoddy.
No Laughing Matter/No Spoilers - S2-E21
Question: Why did it confuse the siblings when they notice Luan not telling any jokes or pulling pranks? Earlier, they all complained about how annoying she is, Lincoln also wanting her to stop.
Answer: Maybe they miss the way that Luan is.
Question: When Karen is being questioned by her superior in the hospital, he has her written report. But, when did she have time to write it? She met Foley, got thrown in the trunk, got into an accident, then went to the hospital.
Question: Is there anything to suggest that someone couldn't leave the grail in the cave and come back every 50 years or so to "top off" their immortality?
Answer: It doesn't appear to work that way. The power of the grail heals Henry's gunshot wound instantly and it keeps the knight looking about 80 years old. However, there is nothing in the film to suggest that simply drinking from the grail and leaving the cave actually extends your life. In fact, Henry drank from the grail and died a natural death a relatively short time later in between this film and the next.
Actually it is stated that Henry Jones Sr. died either in 1951 or 1956. So either at the age of 79 or 85 and at least 13 years after the events of the Last Crusade movie. Whilst this is not an extremely old age, there is no reason to think his life wasn't extended by the grail. Indiana himself got to a high age himself, having drunk from the grail.
I don't think the series is implying that either Jones man lived a long life due to the grail. In fact it would seem to go against the irony of the grail as presented: that it does give you eternal life but you are confined to that cave to enjoy the benefits. Maybe if they had said Henry Jones died at the age of 120 or something out of the ordinary, but they specifically state he dies at a perfectly normal, non magical age.
Well it's never stated that it gives eternal life only to the person staying in the cave either. That's what the question is about. If the healing properties of the grail work on someone who leaves the cave, there is no reason to think their life isn't extended (technically it already was in the case of Henry Jones Sr.) as well. It is possible though, since the knight looked pretty old, that the grail only heals, and that healing extends life but one has to drink from the cup frequently (like every day) in order to stay alive, whilst still getting older.
The knight does say that the grail cannot leave the seal, which is the price of immortality. He is implying that in order to reap the benefits of eternal life you must stay in the cave. The way it seems to work is that in order to extend your life in any meaningful way, you must drink from the grail often. Just leaving and coming back whenever you need a jolt would effectively make the rule about not taking the grail out of the cave meaningless. How often you need to drink is of course not specified. In order for the film's ironic message about the grail to make any kind of sense, you would need to drink from the grail so often you would effectively be stuck in the cave. Possibly drinking from it every day. In which case, like the knight you would just live at the cave and never leave. The knight's brothers both left 150 years after finding the grail, but one of them died shortly after leaving, never making it out of the desert. So with regards to the original question: "can you just come back every 50 years or so?"; it would make the most sense based on what we see in the movie, what we know about how long Henry Jones Sr. Lived, what we know about the knights and how long they lived, and the message the movie is saying about the irony of the grail that the answer to that particular question is "No."
I wonder if someone were to bring a large storage vessel to the cave, and fill it using the Grail, if they could then take that water with them and drink it later... Man, the scientist in me really wants to resolve this.
Drinking from the grail is not the same as pouring water out of it into another vessel. Drinking from the grail is symbolic and there is no real power that it bestows upon the water in it. However, if the grail was able to pass the properties to another vessel, one would have to assume the temple would collapse on itself when attempting to take the secondary vessel out.
Answer: It's stated by the ancient knight that the Grail's powers do not extend into the outside world. He himself was immortal only because he remained at the site, drinking the water, for hundreds of years. Henry Senior was instantly healed on-site, but he and Indy continued to age normally once they left the site.
Then why didn't Henry's wound return when he left? Their healing extended their lives. It got rid of any bad cells, to go scientific.
Because cell deterioration due to aging happens spontaneously, i.e. you've got to keep removing the bad cells. Bullet wounds are not spontaneous...once it's gone, it's gone.
Why would his wound return? He was instantly healed. From that point forward he was in normal health, even after crossing the seal. Indy actually drank from the Grail, which meant he was immortal for a few minutes, but his immortality did not follow him beyond the seal.
It's the difference between believing the power of immortality comes from the cup or staying in the cave. The knight was immortal because he kept drinking from the cup, not because he stayed in the cave. The cup has healing powers, and simply growing old is not the reason for death, regenerating cells will keep you alive, so if the cup regenerates cells, you are immortal from drinking from it, as long as you do it regularly. That's how the knight has done it and why he looks old and is frail. Going outside doesn't negate the powers of the cup, or Henry's wound would have returned. Therefor, going back often to drink from the cup will extend your life. It will cure you from any ailments that accompany old age like heart disease, cancer and brain degeneration.
The Grail Knight plainly says: "You have chosen...wisely. But, beware: the Grail cannot pass beyond the Great Seal, for that is the boundary, and the price, of immortality." Therefore, you remain immortal as long as you don't cross the seal. If you are healed instantly inside the boundary of the Great Seal, then you are healed. Period. It's not just a magic bandaid that disappears if you cross the seal.
Question: They didn't make it out of the cave with the grail because they dawdled... I wonder, would someone be able to make it out running at a dead sprint once they crossed the seal? And if so, does that mean that they're home free? Or would disaster follow them outside of the cave?
Answer: The implication is that disaster would follow them outside of the cave as well. It wouldn't make much sense if you could simply outrun the disaster.
"Followed by disaster" is a kind of curse, a thing not common in Christianity. It doesn't make much sense anyhow. A seal is just a dot - OK, so let's at least grant that the seal represents a circle that the grail has to stay in. Who decided where those borders are? The grail was taken there during the first crusade. That was closer to 1938 than it was to 33 AD. The three knights could move the grail about then. Why not afterwards? The knights could have built the traps. But the borders could only have been set by god, in an unusually late and completely atypical miracle.
There are several examples of curses in the Christian Bible: Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at Sodom, the plagues visited upon Egypt, Adam and Eve are cursed for eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, etc. The knights did not move the grail around after finding it, they stayed in the temple for 150 years and then two left leaving the third behind. The great seal and it's restriction was already in place when the knights got there.
Where in the movie is that stated? I interpreted the knight's story as them having made that place. Looks like it isn't actually specified. But if God made it, then I submit that he would have used Greek, not Latin, for the stepping stones. (All of those curses are from the old testament. The book where god kills firstborn children as long as they're Egyptian. Grail is by definition new testament where you turn the other cheek. There simply are no curses in the gospel, that's just not how Jesus rolled).
The tests were made by the knights, but the seal had God's power in it. Just like the cup.
It's still a bit dodgy. What if you take a shovel and dig yourself a back door? Basically this film really excels at stuff that makes no sense but helps the storytelling, or to be precise, creates dramatic effects.
Every fictional story is like that in some way. That's why it's called fictional. It's just a story.
Not a particularly convincing argument, "stuff happens for no reason all the time", if I may say so. Why is this website even here then? The fact is that some stories are more coherent than others. (♫ "In olden days, a hole in the plot, would seem to matter, quite a lot. Now heaven knows, anything goes..." ♫);).
It's the difference in what story they want told. Is it a fairy tale or based on actual events? A huge difference in plausibility between the two. The site is there to look at mistakes, not how believable the story is.
It is not set in another universe so plausibility isn't somehow suspended. Maybe take a look at the categories recognised by this website. Plot holes, factual errors, even stupidity. (They? Who are they?).
It is set in a fictional universe because it's not a true story. With "they" I mean the writers/director. Mistakes in a plot (plot holes) have nothing to do with how believable the story is. As long as it's plausible, it's not a mistake.
Pretty sure it's the same universe, just with some added characters/events. What about the total lack of spaceships or orcs or talking animals for example? The seal business is not a mistake YET, but it's very dodgy because no-one knows how it works or why. Like all Indys "trapped" secret places, it's (among other things) unclear who resets the traps for the next visitor. We can't brush it ALL off as "the hand of god" every time.
Huge amounts of stuff in films isn't exhaustively explained. Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that's perfectly believable. There's zero evidence either way to say how "followed by disaster" would manifest, and just because there's not a thorough explanation doesn't mean that it's "dodgy", and it's not worth bickering about either, because there's no concrete answer either way.
OK but I would like to note that not everyone who offers creative explanations has recently seen the movie; some people just invent their own. E.g. "followed by disaster" is not an actual explanation from the movie, it was just one of the suggestions made here and only here. Or the ones on my own question below. All I'm saying is, it's very hard to tell what the "rules" / "logic" of this place are supposed to be, so I understand what the OP was driving at.
Question: What did Crockett say his men should change their seedlings for?
Question: How did Lor San Tekka get that map?
Answer: According to the 2017 book Star Wars: The Visual Encyclopedia, Luke Skywalker gave Lor San Tekka the map fragment to his location before he went into hiding on Ahch-To.
Why? Didn't he want to stay hidden?
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: 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.
raywest ★