Question: If Carson is supposed to be a former member in this episode then how was Kim in the dojo during his time (before Jack). In the pilot we see that Jack is the one to get Kim to join. How does this work?
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: Is there a reason why they couldn't just use their suits to get back home? At least Cassie could do it, she is just a kid. Just activate your suit and grow, get out of there. I know eventually they want to stay and help, but at the beginning they were just scared and want to go home, why not do it then?
Question: At the finale of The Wicker Man Howie/Edward Woodward is placed in a wooden cage high above the ground. The cage is set alight. When the cage began to burn and disintegrate, wouldn't he have fallen out of it onto the ground? As the cage burns, the wood must become brittle, so why can't he just force his way out? (Yes, he is surrounded by the islanders, but if anybody was being burnt alive, and they could get out of the flames, wouldn't the self-preservation instinct kick in?).
Answer: He would likely die from the heat or smoke inhalation long before the wood would deteriorate enough for him to fall out. The film also makes a point to show that Howie has given up trying to fight the villagers and has accepted his fate, so even if he could have forced his way out he no longer had the will to do so.
Question: I'm really confused by Eddie's behaviour. Why did he suddenly decide to abandon Vincent and Carmen. And why couldn't he just take the money at the end (and maybe give it to charity if he didn't want it as Carmen suggested). Why did he unnecessarily have to turn it into an issue with Vincent?
Answer: Because it wasn't about the money or a personal issue with Vincent. Eddie had a sudden realization about his own integrity and what he was doing (helping to rig games' outcome to skew betting odds). He wanted to win legitimately against Vincent. Earlier, he had become rather fed up with Vincent's egotistical nature and arrogance, which led to them parting ways.
Question: Wouldn't Max and the nuns have been tortured and executed for helping them escape?
Answer: Quite possibly yes.
Question: What would've happened if they were caught at the end?
Answer: The likely responses of the Nazis would have been either to execute them all, or hold Captain von Trapp's family hostage while he served in the Kriegsmarine.
Question: Jack Conrad's final movie, where he and Irving Thalberg say that the movie is terrible or in Jack's words: "a giant swing of mediocrity", how do we know if they're right or wrong on that? Do we we find out whether or not it was a success or is it what Jack and Irv actually say it is? I also ask this because a friend goes up to Jack and says "Jack's back. Way to go, Jack."
Question: Is the character of Flynn Rider in any way based on the movie star Errol Flynn? Maybe it's my imagination, but, whenever I watch Tangled I notice a vague resemblance between the two characters. Also, it would seem strange to me that, when they were making Tangled, the production staff would never have thought that, simply by giving a character the name "Flynn", it would make many people automatically recall Errol Flynn.
Answer: From the character's Wikipedia page: "Flynn was ultimately developed into a swashbuckling thief inspired by fictional characters Han Solo and Indiana Jones, and actors Gene Kelly and Errol Flynn; Eugene Fitzherbert's alias Flynn Rider was named after the latter."
Question: When Brenda and Esther were fighting over the bible in the school scene and all the pages were ripped out of it, where were the pictures of the men in the bible? Like did no-one see it?
Answer: If you watch closely, when Esther is carrying the bible (before Daniel knocks it out of her hand), it does look like the pictures are in the pages. However, when the papers scatter, the pictures are not visible on the floor. They were covered by the pile of pages on the floor. The pictures must have been there, or else Esther wouldn't have been panicking to gather all of the pages.
Question: Why didn't Mr. Thromby feel any effects from such a large dose of morphine via IV? Wouldn't he immediately have a reaction? (00:36:30 - 00:37:00)
Answer: Thromby had actually not been given an overdose of morphine like he and Marta had thought (this was a key twist in the plot). Even if he had, the full effect would have taken 5 to 10 minutes anyway, by which time he had already cut his throat in anticipation of the "overdose" which would not have actually happened.
Question: What was the deal with Dr. Chamberlain? Was he not a real doctor and just a waiter? Or was he possibly a temp and had more than one job?
Answer: He was actually a waiter that Viola paid/bribed to pretend to be a doctor.
Question: One thing I have never understood through the entire series is Dr Gordon's test. To pass his test, Dr Gordon has to kill Adam by 6 if not his family is killed and he is left to rot. At 6 Zep calls saying he failed his test. He then cuts his foot off, shoots and wounds Adam. The film end with him having crawled to get help and jigsaw shutting the door on Adam. In Saw 7 we see Jigsaw helped him and he became an accomplice. Why did jigsaw not kill him or leave him to die as he failed his test.
Answer: The movies don't directly address this. But in my personal opinion, even though he didn't do everything on time, Jigsaw recognized that Dr. Gordon ultimately was willing to make the sacrifices he had to in order to save his family. He also spent hours in the room listening to Gordon and Adam talking, and likely realised that Gordon was a good man despite his faults. So I personally believe that even though he didn't "pass his test" per se, Jigsaw had grown enough respect for Gordon that he saved him. (And indoctrinated him).
Is Hoffman dead or alive?
That's unknown at this point in time.
Question: When speaking with Robbie, Mitch says he thinks he chose his family out of "love." Does he really mean that? Because he seems MUCH more interested in his own self-serving desires at the expense of tending to his family. Surely that should mean he would easily be capable of moving on from his family, as Robbie suggested? He even acted liked his family wasn't a huge importance until Slim called him out on his nonsense.
Answer: I believe that yes, Mitch really means it. Abusive people often have a twisted idea of love. He loves Slim and Gracie -according to his own sick idea of love. This is one reason why he can't simply move on. Also, as an abuser, he wants to control his family. If he gave up on finding them, Slim would "win", and he cannot tolerate that. He needs for his victim to come back and be controlled by him again.
Question: Why does Lisle keep the potion's existence a secret? What's gonna happen if the public does know?
Answer: As shown in the movie, the potion not only restores a person's youth and makes them immortal, but it would also stop the person from having any type of disease. If the public ever knew about it, everybody would suddenly start fighting to get it without realizing the damage it could do. Ex: At the end of the movie, Madeline and Helen both fall down the church steps and shatter upon hitting the ground. Better to keep it a secret from the whole world than let it get out and have people doing anything that could irreparably damage their bodies.
Question: This may sound a little crazy to the uninitiated, but does anybody have an alchemical interpretation of Apocalypse Now? I remember seeing pages from Coppola's screenplay that were annotated and made reference to transmutation.
Answer: It should be noted that "transmutation" is a word Coppola has used to describe the film making process. Https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFTQcwgq4CY.
Answer: Could you be a bit more specific? I can give a link to the screenplay if you wish. Http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/apocolypse.html I hope that helps.
Question: Why did Pete keep insisting that Michael beat up the burglar, instead of listening to him and simply hauling him away? Surely he would have still got on Michael's good side just to take him in, so why not just do want Michael wants, rather than complicate matters, which leads to Michael cutting ties off with Pete for good?
Answer: Pete was a psychopath and a murderer who did not think or act in a logical, reasonable, or restrained manner. He had become so enamored of Michael and Karen and their affluent lifestyle, that he went to extreme and dangerous lengths to ingratiate himself with them. He was not at all rational.
And also, his years of being a patrol cop and seeing the brutality of society on different calls may have made him snap. I mean, look how heartless he was-he throws a naked woman out into the street in a dark alley and leaves her there after having sex with her in his patrol unit, no regards for anything or anyone at all.
Question: Why in the world would a school principal scold a teacher for apparently putting her hands on a student who had been expelled, not to mention for nearly killing someone, showing he was dangerous? Shouldn't all that make her "putting her hands on him" irrelevant? Especially if he's not a student and wasn't actually injured?
Question: This film will be a sequel to the first two Deadpool films, which were part of the Fox X-Men franchise, but will instead be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Is this the first time in history that a film is a sequel to another film, but is now part of a new franchise?
Answer: In addition to Bishop's answer, you could theoretically apply this to Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man characters. They both appeared in "Spider-Man: No Way Home," which technically acts as a sequel to "Spider-Man 3," "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" and "Spider-Man: Far From Home" - three distinct movie franchises. (And there are persistent rumors that Maguire and/or Garfield may make future MCU appearances).
To add to that (I ran out of room in my reply), with the creation of the multiverse, now any Sony or Fox franchise or universe can be considered as part of the MCU. So any Fantastic Four or X-Men sequel (although most likely any up coming film will be a reboot) can be part of the MCU.
I get what you're saying, but No Way Home was more of a crossover film that acknowledged characters coexisting in the multiverse, with those characters returning to their respective universes by the end, and Sony would still have control of those characters. Although we won't know for sure until Deadpool 3 comes out, Deadpool is meant to start as a character in a previously established film franchise and then occupy a different one moving forward.
But what film franchise would he be in? If he's in a Deadpool movie, he's in the Deadpool franchise. If they stop making Deadpool films and put him in another film, then he becomes part of another franchise. (Or more likely, just another crossover film).
This is where I would disagree with you about the MCU not being a franchise. I would contend that it is a franchise, and every series of films and TV shows within it are sub-franchises. So the Deadpool series of films would be a franchise unto itself, beginning in the larger Fox X-Men franchise and transitioning over to the MCU.
So what distinguishes one Marvel film from being in the MCU and another Marvel film not to be in it? Marvel Studios has been part of the production of a lot of films not included in the MCU, including the Blade, X-Men, and Deadpool films.
Any film made by Marvel themselves (or co-produced like the Tom Holland Spider-Man films). Marvel didn't begin making their own movies until the first Iron Man. All previous movies based on Marvel characters were made by other studios in association with Marvel, largely because Marvel licensed out their properties to avoid going bankrupt. The MCU itself is recognized as being the highest-grossing film franchise of all time.
Answer: It depends how you want to define a franchise. Are you talking production companies involved or the distribution company? And are you considering reboots? The reason Deadpool 3 would be "set" in the MCU is because Disney bought Fox and the filming rights returned to Marvel Studios, along with the rights to X-Men and Fantastic Four. When Sony rebooted Spider-Man with Tom Holland, Sony shared the rights with Marvel Studios. So Spider-Man was part of the MCU while still being part of the Sony Spider-man franchise. Venom 2's mid-credit scene is meant to make it part of the MCU while still being part of Sony's Spider-Man Universe. That being said, there are a number of cross-over films that put sequels into another franchises. Such as Freddy vs Jason, Godzilla vs Kong, or Frankenstein meets the Wolf-Man.
I'm speaking strictly from a narrative point of view. Say, for instance, they made a new Alien movie, but it was now part of the Avatar franchise moving forward, while still being a sequel to the previous Alien movies, and not intended to be a brief crossover. I know the meta nature of the Deadpool character and movies makes it a different beast, but still.
And this is what's up for debate, but to me, the MCU isn't a franchise. It's made up of the various franchises; Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, etc. where they exist in the same universe. So when crossover films occur, it's two or more franchises now existing in the same universe. Even the Avenger films can be considered crossovers. Which is why people were wonder if Spider-Man was part of the MCU or the Sony universe. Deadpool is still part of the Deadpool franchise, but now part of the MCU.
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: Kim and Carson knew each other from school, not karate.