Question: In season 3, they were setting up how it was probably going to be Mendoza running for the Republicans. Is there any particular reason they chose Conway instead of Mendoza? (Be it behind the scenes or not).
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 Judy starts her mission to find Mr. Otterton and finds Nick with his partner, Finnick, she manages to hustle the fox, get him to confess his crimes on a voice recorder, and forces him to assist her on her mission before she decides to arrest him. Finnick laughs at Nick's humiliation and walks away. Why does Judy let Finnick off the hook despite the fact he was involved in Nick's scams?
Question: In the beginning of the film, Truman talks about something looking into a mirror. Like, "I'm not going to make it", "You're going to have to go on without me", "You're going to the top of this Mountain, broken legs and all" and so on. What was he doing?
Chosen answer: He is daydreaming out loud - acting out a little fantasy in his head. Truman leads a very ordinary, very humdrum, almost totally pre-programmed life. He attempts brief moments of escape, fantasizing about lost love, dreaming of a trip to Fiji, and engaging in small flights of fancy while staring at himself in the mirror. He has another such episode when he draws a space helmet with soap around his reflection, and imagines himself an astronaut.
Question: Charles amply demonstrated that he could remotely control the mind of a Russian naval officer, causing him to act against orders. However, on the beach, when they are unable to contact the American and Soviet fleets by radio, why didn't Charles simply control the minds of the naval commanders and stop the naval attack?
Chosen answer: He was much closer to the Russian officer in comparison to when he was on the beach, and the Russian officer was just one man. Taking complete control of the hundreds of men on the ships required to fire all those guns would be beyond even Xavier.
Question: Just how does Walt intend to explain the presence of all that meth money, even posthumously? Just how does he think his heirs will react to that, how is he going to launder it? How does he think his wife and kids will explain it? If they knowingly inherit and use such money, they could face charges of accessory after the fact. Is this ever addressed in the show?
Chosen answer: I'm not sure how far you are into the show but he does eventually come up with a way to launder it (wont spoil it for you but rest assured, when he gets a lawyer the show gets much better!) and in the final season he also comes up with a way to give his children his money without the cops or the DA knowing it came from him.
Question: After accepting David as a son, Monica in a wedding dress wears perfume, and she and Henry in a tuxedo go out. Where did they go? They had a wedding?
Answer: It's not a wedding dress, just a fancy dress. They're heading to a formal party.
Question: When Ramses is getting ready to go after Moses, Nefretiri hands him the sword and says to come back with Moses' blood on it. Why would Nefretiri want Moses dead, since she had been in love with him for a long time?
Answer: She was a woman scorned. Yes, she loved Moses, but Moses turned his life away from the royal life of Egypt (and Nefertiri's love) to be with his people, the Hebrews, and serve the will of God. These were far more important reasons to Moses than living a lush life as a prince of a people he was not connected to by blood or lineage.
Answer: The final plague was the death of all first born male children. It included her son, but she refused to believe it. She believed Moses would would protect him from the curse. Even when he was dying in her arms, she said, my son will not die.
Question: Why did Pain and Panic run and leave baby Hercules on the ground when they hear Alceme and Amphitrion instead of grabbing the baby and running?
Answer: When the couple turns the corner, startling Pain and Panic, they proceed to...well...panic. Pain and Panic didn't want to be found out. And while carrying a baby, they couldn't hide as quickly or as nimbly. It was an impulsive act which they might not have committed if they had time to think it out rationally. Besides, had they not panicked and run, baby Hercules would have ended up in the hands of Hades and the movie would have been over before it began.
Question: How did the box get out of the cement in part 3 and into a pillar in part 4?
Answer: Not sure why you submitted this question for the eighth film in the series. But regardless, that's just a bit of what's called "retroactive continuity," which is a term for when a movie either changes or ignores things from previous films. Rather than having the box be in the cement floor, it was relocated to a cement pillar. This change was presumably just because the writer or director thought it would look more dramatic for it to be ripped out of a pillar as opposed to being just dug up from the floor.
Question: What is the age difference between Victor and Logan?
Answer: This is hard to definitively say. In the comics, Victor is never the half-brother of Logan. This movie is based on a 6-part comic book series called "Origin" (also known as Origin: The True Story of Wolverine). In it, Logan/Wolverine is revealed to be James Howlett. Dog Logan (yes, Dog as in the animal) is Thomas Logan's son (Thomas Logan being a groundskeeper for the Howletts). It is then revealed Thomas Logan is James Howlett's father as well. In the comics, Dog was born 1882. Wolverine's actual birth year is never definitive, but said to be between 1882-1885. However, Dog Logan is not Victor Creed/Sabertooth in the comics (as of yet). So the film turned Dog into Victor. So in this film, Victor is probably 1 or 2 years older than Logan. In the film, the actor who portrays young Victor is only a year older than the actor who portrays young Logan.
Still Charmed & Kicking - S8-E1
Question: Why do the sisters keep changing their appearance throughout a few episodes? We're there issues with replacement actresses that caused the changes? Victor references that they keep changing identities but there is no good explanation as to why.
Answer: You have to watch the previous episodes but basically they are pretending to be dead. They cast a spell to change their appearance in which only Victor and each other can see them for who they are. Their appearance keeps changing because they can't decide what to look like.
Question: Why was this movie rated G? It does contain some violence and a murder scene and some content that's inappropriate for children.
Chosen answer: You are correct that "Oliver" does have some material that might be intense for young children - including a murder, some minor violence, issues of adoption, child abuse, kidnapping, and even some sexual content (but only by innuendo). Drinking alcohol is also involved, and some of the characters with whom we are meant to sympathize are, in fact, thieves. But intense content does not necessarily preclude a movie from obtaining a "G" rating. There have been several G-rated movies which have content, including killing, that could be frightening for children, including "Bambi," "The Lion King," "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," and "The Wizard of Oz," to name a few. In "Oliver," most of the violence is alluded to, and the murder of Nancy is committed out of sight (only Sykes' hand is visible, and Nancy's screams are heard), though it is frightening and realistic. Violence can be permitted in G-rated films, as long as it is "minimal." Sexual innuendo is permitted, in small doses, as long as lewd acts aren't shown. Intense content is also permitted. Drug use is not permitted, but I suppose the tavern scenes are cartoonish enough as to not warrant a more harsh rating. The bottom line is that ratings are determined by the MPAA - Motion Picture Association of America, and that association is given wide latitude and discretion. Apparently, the "mature" content of "Oliver!" was not viewed as rising to a level which the MPAA felt would warrant a more stringent rating.
Question: What happened to Fifi, Roop and Charlie - they are not seen or mentioned for the rest of the film?
Chosen answer: We don't know - Max was on leave after his wife and child were killed. He changed into his police uniform and stole the interceptor to revenge their deaths. He did not have to see his colleagues to do this, as he had access to the police garage.
Question: When the General enquires if the Confederates are Tucker's men, his adjutant answers "yes, we discovered them that morning." He states that Tucker's men have been there 2 days. How would he know that?
Answer: They were likely searching for Tucker's men for two days, and finally stumbled across their location.
Question: In the very last shot of the film the Wonkavator flies up into the clouds and disappears but a few seconds later the clouds appear very thin and the Wonkavator is completely gone. Did the Elevator turn and fly back down or did it fly more up into the sky?
Chosen answer: From the way the shot is filmed, we can presume the Wonkavator continues to fly further up into the sky until we can no longer see it. Once the machine disappears from our sight into some thicker clouds, the camera pans left slowly to show us more clouds, including some thinner ones. But the whole shot was created using special effects. I am fairly certain the intent of the filmmakers was to have us believe Charlie was flying off to an adventure above the clouds.
Question: I have two questions about Duke Weaselton. 1) Is he the same weasel who was a childhood friend of Gideon Gray's? 2) Despite Judy capturing him early on, how did he get out of prison? If he was released from prison then why?
Chosen answer: 1. No, it's not, that is Travis. The weasel who was a childhood friend of Gideon has brown fur, but when officer Hopps chases the Duke, the Duke's fur colour is brownish orange. 2. The Duke has gone through the period of his prison time, so he did get out - maybe the Zootopia laws are different than ours.
Question: Kirk and crew deliberately disclose crucial technological secrets, extend the life of a random stranger, deliver future technology to a primitive military power, abduct a cetacean biologist, and actually contribute to the extinction of a species during their brief stay in 20th Century San Francisco. Specifically: Scotty reveals the secret of Transparent Aluminum 150 years too early; McCoy arbitrarily uses 23rd Century medicine to cure a seriously ill 20th Century woman; and Kirk chooses to remove Gillian from the 20th Century. Perhaps most importantly, Chekov leaves behind a Starfleet Communicator and a Type 2 Phaser in the hands of the U.S. Navy (who would undoubtedly dissect the devices and try to exploit the technology a couple of centuries too soon). Beyond all that, Kirk and crew abduct two breeding humpback whales, one of which is pregnant, and that certainly contributes to humpback extinction in the 21st Century. Given what we think we know about disrupting linear time continuity (many instances are cited in Star Trek canon), how did Kirk and crew return to anything even resembling their own timeline after such blatant and deliberate interference in Earth history?
Chosen answer: This question has been answered a number of times by various individuals, all saying pretty much the same thing. The answers have been most satisfactory given the question revolves around a fictitious situation and the answer (s) need to be accepted as complete for this purpose. Any dispute or non-acceptance should be addressed in a Star Trek forum. Any ignoring of the Prime Directive was done to save the future of Earth, as the probe would have wiped out all life on Earth. Essentially, nothing that was done in the past resulted in major changes that would make Earth 300 years later appear any different, and no major futuristic technologies were revealed. The major one, Chekov's communicator and phaser being left behind did not result in anybody learning secrets. In the film, the phaser didn't function because of the radiation. It's presumed then the radiation permanently damaged the equipment so it appeared to be nothing but a toy or prop. However, in the novel "The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh", Roberta Lincoln was sent by Gary Seven to recover the items from Area 51 before any secrets were learned (and as stated before, additional corrections to Earth's timeline could have been done that aren't addressed in the film.) The subsequent loss of a suspicious "ruskie" would have hardly affected the era that was already in the midst of the Cold War. McCoy even questions that giving Dr. Nichols the formula for transparent aluminum could alter history to which Scotty replies what if Dr. Nichols is the one who invents it, to which McCoy agrees (in a later novel it is reveled that Scotty already knew Dr. Nichols invented transparent aluminum, so history was not changed.) The miraculous recovery of the old lady (growing a new kidney) was done by a pill so that any examination of her would not reveal the futuristic method involved. She would be a bewilderment to the medical community at best, and most likely misdiagnosis would be to blame. And just because she got a new kidney does not mean her life would have been extended, she could have died some other way in both timelines. And as stated before, Gillian simply wasn't vital to Earth's history. She could have contributed nothing of importance to society and died alone and childless. And a missing pair of breeding Humpbacks would hardly affect the extinction of their species, however in the future, they are already extinct, so little changes would occur. As for any questions about people seeing the Klingon ship in the past, who would believe them? People have long been claiming to see spaceships and aliens to little or no avail, so why would anyone believe a handful of people who said they saw aliens in a spaceship steal 2 whales? However, as with many time travel situations in films and novels, it's possible the events of the 23rd century as they appear in the beginning of the film are a result of Kirk and company's actions in the 20th century since the events already occurred even though Kirk and company had not yet done it themselves (this is where a discussion forum on the film would be advised, or a discussion forum on the theories of time travel).
Possibly the most convoluted and poorly-reasoned series of answers I've seen on this site. So far.
I think they're pretty logical actually.
I think your opinion would be in the minority. There is nothing exceptionally convoluted, nor poorly reasoned in the response.
Answer: They were extraordinarily lucky. The crew quite often defies all odds and encounters literal miracles. For a period of time this even happened on a roughly weekly basis.
Question: What's the name of the club in the rave scene?
Chosen answer: The name of the club is Cafe Opera.
Question: In the back seat of De Winter's car, at lunch from the inquest, I can't get all of what Favell says: As he throws a chicken bone out of the car window, he says, "By the way, what do you do with old bones..." and then I lose it. At the end, he says, "however, for the time being."
Chosen answer: From the screenplay of "Rebecca" which I found on-line, and verified by looking at two different versions, the entirety of the line is: "By the way, what do you do with old bones? Bury them, eh what? However, for the time being - you know, Max, I'm getting awfully fed up with my job as a motor-car salesman."
Question: The dress Claire is wearing when Doug goes back to rescue her is not the same dress she is wearing at the autopsy. I don't understand this. Also when the terrorist calls Claire about her car, the truck he was using for the bomb had not yet been shot by Minudi. So he called her before he knew he would need her Bronco?
Answer: The second part of your question: the bad guy needed a truck. He called Claire but they can't deal. SO he bought another truck. That truck shot by the policeman. Because he don't have enough time he must call Claire again to buy her truck.
Answer: When Doug went back previously, he managed to save Claire and took her home. However he left her there instead of taking her with him to the ferry. The bomber would have suspected Claire had survived the explosion at the cabin and would have gone back to Claire's house in case she showed up there. Doug would have left her there thinking she would be safe. But after he left the bomber would show up, discover she had survived and killed her the exact way he was originally planning to. Only this time she would be killed in her dress. When Doug went back for the last time, he remembered seeing Claire at the morgue in her dress and knew then that she would only survive if he took her with him to the ferry, which he does. That one act is what saves everyone in the end because Claire ends up distracting the bomber long enough for Doug to kill him. That decision to take her with him finally closes the loop. Mission accomplished.
Nice answer. But then why is Claire's body ever discovered with a red dress and her fingers cut off? There is a weak argument that the first time Doug goes back he happens to make the trip a few seconds too late. Even then, with cut off fingers, you'd drop her off at the hospital, not at home, thus she wouldn't be killed and dumped in the river.
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.
Chosen answer: Finnick didn't say anything that could be used against him and she had no proof that he was delinquent on his taxes, as he said, "She hustled you good!"
Finnick was involved in all of Nick's scams so shouldn't he have been charged as an accessory and therefore also forced to help Judy?
Nick's crime was not paying taxes. Judy had no evidence that Finnick was guilty in any tax evasion or that he even participated in earlier scams.