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: What city and state do the movies take place in?

Answer: A fictional location in the San Francisco Bay Area referred to as "Tri-County Area." - says google.

Question: When Obi-wan Kenobi goes to the planet to fight General Grievous alone, shortly after he arrives he is in two places at once. He is sitting back in his ship talking to his droid before leaving and yet seconds later he has never left the planet. Can this be explained?

Answer: He set his plane on auto-pilot and then snuck off it before it took off to give the impression that he had left the planet.

Phaneron Premium member

Thanks for your response. Auto pilot had occurred to me and it must have been that way, it's just that that it all happens quick, in the blink of an eye.

Question: Why would the Trade Federation need the queen to sign a treaty to make their invasion legal if they've already invaded the place and taken over anyway?

Answer: They want the rest of the Republic to believe the queen has legitimately sanctioned the trade treaty.

raywest Premium member

Not just the trade treaty, but the occupation too.

lionhead

Yes, that too.

raywest Premium member

Question: What did Rooney mean when he told Grace to "go soak your head"?

Answer: It's an old insult, somewhat equivalent to 'buzz off'.

Brian Katcher

Answer: The other answer (about buzzing off) is correct, but the phrase has multiple definitions. It can also mean that someone doesn't know what they're talking about, or a person who is extremely frustrated and unable to express themselves calmly or coherently need to cool off.

raywest Premium member

Question: Why didn't Hulk use the Infinity Gauntlet to snap Thanos and his army? He was able to snap everybody that Thanos killed and survived, so he would have survived another snap.

Answer: The gauntlet fell off after his first snap, then Thanos arrived from the past and destroyed the building, separating them. Hulk never got near the gauntlet and the stones during the ensuing battle, so he didn't have an opportunity to try a second snap to destroy Thanos.

Sierra1 Premium member

Really what they should have done was pulled the stones off the gauntlet and separated them again, and not run around with a fully assembled and powered up Gauntlet for Thanos to grab.

Vader47000

I agree.

That would mean they had to touch them, and nobody besides Hulk, Thor and Carol could touch one without dying.

lionhead

Ordinary humans can't just grab an infinity stone. Even when Thanos takes the power stone out of gauntlet you see it start to destroy them.

Only the Power Stone has been shown to kill normal people who try to hold it. Hawkeye literally held the Soul Stone in his hand in this movie.

Phaneron Premium member

Because he made the necessary sacrifice. Anyone else touching it, big problem. Could be an exception though. The power, reality and space gems have been proven to be untouchable and killing anyone who does (with exceptions though). Time gem is very carefully handled as well so I wouldn't touch that one either. Mind gem, who knows?

lionhead

I don't recall the Time Stone killing anyone who touched it. The only example I can think of was the Red Skull presumably being killed when he handled the Tesseract, but was in actuality teleported to Vormir. The Reality Stone has a will of its own, so someone could feasibly handle it without harm. You're wonder about the Mind Stone is correct, as no human character was shown in any movie to have handled it directly. Overall though, I would say that I disagree with someone trying to remove a stone from the gauntlet, as one stone could easily be lost, and Thanos could still kill every hero at the battle even with one or more stones missing.

Phaneron Premium member

The reality stone attaches itself to anyone touching it like a parasite and slowely kills them. I'd say it's a bad idea to touch it. As for the time stone only the ancient one and Hulk actually touched it and there is reason Strange handles it carefully and without touching it. As for the Red skull, don't really know if he is really alive on Vormir. Who knows what the tesseract did to him?

lionhead

Whether or not Red Skull is still alive is an interesting topic, but either way, I'd argue that while the Tesseract transported him, it itself is not what made him in his current state, but rather his curse to guard the Soul Stone and the planet of Vormir itself, as it is a dominion of death as Nebula stated.

Phaneron Premium member

Question: Why does Baroness Bomburst hate children?

adamjustus

Answer: Caractucus Potts uses the Baroness character in the story he tells his kids to add tension and fright. The Baroness is a spoiled, selfish, narcissist whose only true love in the world is the rich and powerful Baron. She probably did not want children in her life with the Baron to distract her from enjoying and indulging in the power and riches she shares with the Baron, and she projects that onto other people who have children. Children, to her, are a huge distraction from her cushy life. Or, she hates children because she cannot have any of her own due to medical reasons, thus, she figures if she cannot have them, then nobody in the village can have them, so the children that are around are in hiding. The movie makes no mention as to why the Baroness hates children, so leaves that up to speculation by the viewer, unless the original book version has her backstory.

Scott215

Question: How could Bellatrix possibly have recognised Neville?

THE GAMER NEXT DOOR

Answer: She's seen a picture? Been given his description? There are any number of possibilities.

Jason Hoffman

Answer: I'd say this is a deliberate movie mistake to provide plot exposition. Bellatrix was one of the Death Eaters who tortured Neville's parents into permanent insanity when Neville was a young boy. It's unlikely Bellatrix would recognize Neville on sight, but this reminds us of her involvement in the Longbottom family tragedy, and shows that Neville's fighting Voldemort and the Death Eaters is personally motivated.

raywest Premium member

Question: Spider-Man: Far From Home shows that people snapped back after the "blip" come back in exactly the same place they disappeared from - mid-band performance, for example, and getting a basketball to the head as a result. Have the makers of either movie expanded on the ramifications of this? Because people snapped off a flight for example, might reappear mid-air...but with no plane, so plummet to their deaths.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Answer: Kevin Feige said in a Reddit thread that Hulk specifically brought everyone back in a safe place.

Chosen answer: The makers haven't said anything that I have heard, but we can see and deduce a couple things. First, if you watch the band members disappear, then the reappearance, those that reappear are not at the locations of those that disappeared (note the two videos are 90° off from each other), meaning either some compensation happened in Stark's invocation, or the filmmakers made a mistake in their portrayal. Second, we don't hear anyone in the movie make any comment about such problems so that implies the blip-ending had a compensation for such events so they didn't happen, though to prevent calamity, not simple harm. If you take this issue to the extreme, the planet is no longer where it was, plus has spun on its axis, so if no compensation occurred, everyone would have reappeared in space millions of miles away from the planet's new location, which they didn't.

Question: How was Billy considered "worthy" to begin with? When we first meet him, he is petulant, selfish, and cruel to anyone that wants to help him. Once he does get the power of Shazam, he becomes even more selfish, petty, and reckless.

BaconIsMyBFF

Answer: He went out of his way to protect his new foster brother, who's disabled mind you, when he was being picked on by the Steven King novel bullies. He showed he had some virtue. And, on top of that, his other behavior, like stealing the police car, while bad, did have a noble reason behind it of him trying to find his mother. So he wasn't perfect, but he had some virtue. And, as the old wizard said, he was out of time and Billy was his last choice.

Quantom X Premium member

Answer: In addition to the other answer, it's also a pretty common trope in films, stories, etc. for a character who is imperfect to be considered "worthy" or "pure of heart" not because of their actions but because of their potential to learn from their mistakes and do great things when given power. Billy is actually a pretty good example of this - he's brash and a bit selfish, but ultimately proves to be a capable hero by learning from his mistakes and growing as a person, thus ultimately becoming worthy of the power.

TedStixon

Question: What was the point of Kint using names on the wall and coffee cup if he already had a story he told to the DA that checked out? He started using them before Kujan found out about the person Keyser Soze.

Answer: Kint (Keyser Soze) was toying with the cops, using names within the interrogation room to see if the cops were really paying attention, who were so engrossed in the story of Keyser Soze they did not see what Kint was doing or the clues being offered to them, such as throwing out unrelated bits about him being in a barber shop quartet in Skokie, Illinois, which was on the dry-erase board in the interrogation room. That the cops did not get the clues until after he was released and escaped much later demonstrated how Keyser Soze could control whatever situation he was in, including outsmarting experienced veteran police detectives.

Scott215

Question: Whenever Bruce transforms into the Hulk, why is he always in his underwear? Other versions of the Hulk depict him in full pants so why would Bruce's pants also rip along with his clothes when transforming into the Hulk, leaving him only in his underwear? Maybe this was due to the fact that the crew wanted to make the Hulk more stronger and more bigger in this film.

John Carlos

Answer: First, he isn't always in his underwear. In one transformation he's in purple pants, and in another he's completely nude. As to why, it's likely because the filmmakers realised it's unrealistic that Bruce would always be wearing pants that could withstand the radical change in size. Also, as we see the hulk grows larger physically when he becomes more angry, and at some point no fabric will stay in place.

Jason Hoffman

Question: How did Matrix know that the gun store had a hidden room full of illegal weapons such as automatic rifles, rocket launchers, and anti-personnel mines? There isn't any dialogue explaining how he knew the room was there and how he knew the general location of the hidden switch to open the room.

BaconIsMyBFF

Answer: You are right that there is no reason given in the movie so any answer would be speculation. One possibility is it is a secret government (or criminal) arms cache which can be accessed in times of emergency and Matrix is connected enough to know about it.

Question: What happened to Paolo after he was left to the paparazzi?

Show generally

Question: The Monsignor Martinez - in addition to being a priest, is he supposed to be a vigilante? Or a mercenary?

Answer: I get the impression he's some sort of master criminal, though the specific details are left up to the viewer's imagination.

Brian Katcher

Question: This might be a silly question but it did puzzle me just a little bit. The old man in the film, when Phil first starts to care for him he starts referring to him as Dad and Pops. Is there supposed to be any actual relation between them, or is he just referring to him as this as sort of a kind title?

Quantom X Premium member

Answer: I think he is just using them as terms of elderly respect. It would be pretty callous even for Phil to completely disregard the homeless man at the beginning of the film if he was some sort of relative. The old man also does nothing to indicate a shared history between them.

Phaneron Premium member

It was a common term that was often used in the early-to-mid 20th century where a kindly, older man would affectionately be referred to as "Pops." In movies of that era, there was often a minor character referred to in this way, particularly if no-one knew his name (i.e. the stage doorman, the custodian, etc).

raywest Premium member

Question: What exactly is an orange whip?

Answer: It's an alcoholic drink.

Question: If Doc Ock were to die, would the arms attached to him also die? Also, if they did, could they be removed from him, and attached to someone else and come back to life?

Answer: It's hard to say. The film shows Doc Ock dying, and the arms seem to "die" with him. (Notice the lights on them slowly blinking out as he sinks into the water.) But at the same time, we don't know 100% how they work, so there's always a chance if they were removed and attached to someone else, they may come back alive and resume their "mission." Outside of the inhibitor chip, which seemed to have its own power source, the arms themselves didn't seem to "come alive" until the unit attached itself to his spine. So I always assumed they got their power/electricity from a host body. Which would explain why they appeared to "die" when Ock died.

TedStixon

Answer: How the tentacles work in the film differ a bit from the comics, so any answer would be speculation (and not really relevant since any future Doc Ock movie character is going to be a reboot with rules based on the writers' whims). In the film, the tentacles were attached to his nervous system along the spinal cord and he was able to control them mentally (mentally controlled prosthetics are a real thing). In the comics, they were more remote-controlled and his exposure to radiation gave him telepathic control over them and he could control them psionically, even when severed from his body. In the film, the tentacles had been built with more A.I. than in the comics, and the blast from his sun experiment actually caused the tentacles to gain control of Doc Ock because of the A.I. If Doc Ock died, the tentacles could continue to "live" if they had a power source. They could then be attached to someone else in the same manner, i.e. connected to the nervous system. However, whether or not they would be in control of that person or "alive", without going through another similar accident, would be speculation and up to the writer.

Bishop73

Question: When Beetlejuice tried to get the Maitland's business - I don't recall hearing what he expected for payment from them - does anyone know?

Answer: He didn't really talk about payment from the Maitlands. He made it seem like he was good at getting rid of the living and just wanted to help out. But really, he was trying to get "hired" so they would say his name 3 times so he could be summoned. Then by marrying Lydia, he could escape the Neitherworld.

Bishop73

Question: 2 questions: 1. What Is the significanceof the Deathly Hallows story (Luna's dad wears it around his neck, is it some sort of religion?), and 2. Why did Dumbledore draw the symbol in correspondence with Grindlewald?

dannydandan8888

Answer: It's a bit complicated. The Deathly Hallows were not tied to any religion but to mythology. They were the three powerful and revered magical objects (the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone, and the Cloak of Invisibility) that, through history and legend, were believed to give whoever possessed them immense power and mastery over death. The Deathly Hallows symbol, like the one Mr. Lovegood wore, is a circle, a triangle, and a straight line that represent the three objects.Voldemort only coveted the Elder Wand, wielded by Dumbledore, because it was the most powerful wand in the world. Dumbledore won the wand from his former friend, the evil wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, after defeating him in a fierce duel. Mr. Lovegood merely serves as a plot device to explain the significance and lore of the Hallows that were tied to Harry's ancestors, the Peverells. Dumbledore placed the Deathly Hallows symbol in the book as a clue to Hermione about the Elder Wand's importance. In the book, when Harry became the Elder Wand's master, he chose to return it to Dumbledore's tomb; in the movie, he destroys the wand. He deliberately dropped the Resurrection Stone in the Forbidden Forest so that no-one, including himself, would be tempted to summon a spirit from the Netherworld. He kept the cloak, that he had inherited from his father. Harry understood that truly "mastering" death was not fearing it.

raywest Premium member

Question: Why would Ben/Riley/Abigail need to go all the way to Philadelphia to see the Silence Dogood letters? Surely they would have been available online in 2004 when this movie was made? Ian found info on "Pass and Stow" online. (01:07:05 - 01:14:05)

History_Movie_Nerd

Answer: In reality, they wouldn't...the only reason they go to Philadelphia is to advance the plot. This has been discussed by numerous critics and can be classified as a mistake (either a "Deliberate Mistake", or character stupidity).

The glasses! And of course one can presume the didn't know specifically what they where looking for.

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.