Question: At the end of the movie when the mermaid offers to save the religious guy, why does it appear that she is just dragging him underwater to his death?
Answer: The difference this time is that she actually kissed him before pulling him under. Either she breathes for him that way, or there's some magical property to a mermaid's kiss. They mentioned earlier in the film how a mermaid's kiss can save a man from drowning. Also, once the end credits start to flash on the screen (background is under water), about the 4th set, the screen lightens, and you can see two "mermaid" figures/shadows swimming toward the upper right of the screen. This is most likely Philip and Syrena. He became a "mermaid/merman."
Answer: The Mermaid said, "I can save you. All you have to do is ask." The man said, "All I ask, is for your forgiveness." That was close enough for the Mermaid.
Question: After Voldemort's death, is anyone able to teach Defense Against Dark Arts for more than a year?
Answer: Yes. According to J.K. Rowling in interviews, the curse Voldemort had cast on the Defense Against the Dark Arts position preventing any teacher lasting more than one year, was finally broken upon his death, and from then on any instructor lasted beyond twelve months.
In the movies it is never mentioned that Voldemort cursed the DADA post or even applied for this position.
It is mentioned in the books.
Question: In the final shot, we see Jill's head move a little. Was that suppose to let the viewers know that she's alive or was it just a mistake?
Answer: I personally submitted this as a revealing mistake. There is no official statement from Wes Craven or anyone else involved in the making of the movie about it being deliberate. So in my eyes, it's a mistake.
Answer: I actually read that they noticed this before the movie came out and left it in to keep the ending ambiguous and since they were planning to make Scream 5, they felt that would possibly be the way to go.
That's very interesting, especially now that Scream 5 is finally getting made. Although it doesn't appear that Emma Roberts is returning.
Question: In the last part of the movie, how are they supposed to drive the snow vehicles? There is a scene before where they cut the wires of all the vehicles to disable them for the quarantine. Am I missing something?
Chosen answer: By disabling the snow vehicles, they are making sure that the creature can't use them to escape from the quarantine zone. Since the creature can assimilate anybody, it would probably know how to use one.
Question: At the beginning when Sam is having his premonition and he saves Molly, why does she die in the plane crash at the end? And why did Sam die similar to the guy in the first "Final destination" movie? It couldn't have been him cause Sam and Molly witness him being removed from the plane before they took off.
Answer: To answer your second question, Sam's death is not like any other death's from the first final destination movie. If you are talking about Alex, he was hit by a falling brick off-screen. To answer your first question, near the end, Peter though that Candice had deserved to live more then Molly, and attempts to kill her. Sam kills Peter before he has a chance to stab molly. The gun dropped by peter lands on the stove, and shoots off in the air. This is a sign that Sam saved Molly from dying, thus, putting her on Death's list, and making it all right to kill her on Flight 180.
This is in response to the answer. Your answer is dismissive to the nuance of premonition as depicted by the movie. This is extremely crucial: Premonition, as visioned by every protagonist, is the event that would have happened if the protagonist didn't intervene. Every events in premonition is supposed to be absolutely true. As such, in the premonition, Sam saves Molly. This means if the events weren't intervened by Sam, he would still have saved Molly, while the rest (Sam, Candice, Peter) would have died anyway. So Molly should be safe all along. It wouldn't even be wrong to say that 'death' hadn't even planned to kill Molly at the bridge. So your point about Molly being next in the list because Sam killed peter and death skipping Sam now to go on Molly isn't even valid. So if Molly was clean in death's perspectives all along, why did she die at the end? (because she didn't cheat the design, she wasn't even supposed to be in the list of death's order; as I mentioned earlier, it was never the intention of death to kill Molly as evidenced by the saving of Molly in Sam's premonition).
But Molly didn't die in his vision so she wasn't on the list to begin with so how can he skip someone's death that's not on the list and he kill his friend so why did he still die on the plane with Molly?.
Answer: Molly was never meant to die on the bridge because her and Sam were meant to die on Flight 180, just like how Nick, Lori and Janet were meant to die at the Cafe at the end of The Final Destination. It was basically just a cruel twist of fate that they would be on the exact same plane from the original movie. And Sam dying similarly to Alex doesn't really seem to have much of a purpose, unless maybe as a little throwback to how Alex died in his premonition, or is just a coincidence.
Answer: Molly was never on death's list. Peter killing the detective he then got his remaining years, then Sam killing Peter transferred those years to Sam, so when Sam and Molly were on the plane when the plane explodes that was the time for them to die, I'm not saying they were meant to die on that plane, they were just meant to die at that time. Just like when Nathan accidentally killed Roy who had signs of a brain aneurysm, so Roy would have dropped dead any day, hence when Nathan got Roy's life he died at the memorial, though in a more shocking way.
Question: Since Loki is the son of Laufey the Frost Giant, why doesn't he look like one?
Answer: When initially found by Odin, he does. Something then acts on him that causes him to mimic Odin's more human appearance, which he then keeps until his exposure to the frost giants during the events of the film, which tips him off to his true nature. Whether this was caused by some magic inherent in Loki even as a baby or whether Odin did something to disguise the child's true origin is unrevealed.
Question: Of all the Transformers who die in this film, how many of them have died before in the Transformers canon? I'm looking for specific examples and how many times they've died.
Question: When Hobbs realises that Dom and Brian left him with an empty vault, Hobbs has a flashback of Leo and Santos loading the real vault onto a truck. My question: was that really a flashback (did he really see it take place and forget?) or was it like Dom's image of Letty's death when he and Mia are at the crash site in Fast Four and not 100% accurate, since he didn't know what Letty's killer looked like yet?
Question: Does Nash call Tom Brant by his real name when at the train tracks when Brant (aka Jason Statham) tries to attack the killer. I thought I heard Nash say "Jason, calm down Jason"?
Answer: Yes; he definitely says Jason.
Question: If imprinting is possible for werewolves then why didn't Jacob do it to Bella? Mad Magazine pointed this out as he does this to her daughter, kind of creepy it was.
Answer: Imprinting is an involuntary mechanism. The shape-shifter can't voluntarily imprint on anybody. Jacob tried to imprint on Bella but was unable to do so and began going around looking for other girls to imprint on but, is unable to do it of his own free will.
Question: What (if any) is the significance of the "OZ" graffiti that pops up throughout the film? It became quite distracting as I thought it would pay off at the end of the film.
Answer: The 'OZ' sprayer is a very disturbed man who claims to be an artist but the courts think otherwise. You can found his OZ (which he claims to be read OLI!) everywhere in Berlin and Hamburg. It has absolutely nothing to do with the movie but you can't film a wide open scene in Berlin without taping it.
Answer: Mise en scene. OZ / OLI is firstly a name. Asking what or rather who OZ / OLI is, is the point. One of the main questions of the film is what constitutes a person's identity.
Question: Hey I haven't seen a few bits of the movie but does Humpty trick Puss with that bank? And How does the middle of the P that Puss cuts with his sword at the start of the movie stay in place?
Answer: The middle of the P stays in place because it's an animation. Humpty told Puss he owed people money and they were coming for him, but he really robbed a bank. The guards thought Puss was involved. They tried to arrest him, but Puss scratched one in self defence. He escaped on a wagon and the money accidentally fell off a bridge. He was on the run ever since.
Question: How could Shen know that Po would be the baby panda from the village attacked by Shen's army?
Answer: Since Po's father was presumably the only panda to attack Shen's wolves head-on, there's a chance Shen could have seen him. Plus in the flashback, Shen orders his wolves to attack Po and his mother before Po's father defends them both with his mallet.
Question: In the scene when Moriarty is doing a book signing, his aide sits and hands him a piece of paper with what looks like some kind of grouped numbers together. What is this and does it get referenced later in the film?
Chosen answer: That's the key code for his fortune concealed in his library. The one Mrs Watson uses to relay to Inspector Lestrade. Like the book reference numbers in a public library.
Question: After Alan Krumweide starts spreading misinformation about Forsythia curing MEV-1, we see a scene in a pharmacy being flooded with desperate customers. But if Forsythia is a homeopathic drug, then why is it being sold in pharmacies in the first place? As the characters say later on, it takes months just to get a drug approved, let alone sold.
Answer: Many pharmacies in the US sell homeopathic supplements.
Question: How does Eddie get away with the apparent murder of the blonde woman in the apartment? I gather that even he doesn't know whether it was him or not but surely the Police would want to at least call him in for questioning at some point? And if it was him, surely, in that situation, it would be difficult to get away without leaving any evidence?
Answer: Although there is no definitive proof, I believe the killer to be Atwood's henchman. During the trip scene we see him following Eddie and the Blonde to their room and although it comes off as an illusion there's no reason it cannot be real. This alone is not enough to say for certain but the main reason I point to the henchman is because of how the story plays out following the murder. Eddie is by an eyewitness (probably someone working for Atwood if not the actual killer) who tells the police about him and as a result he is called into questioning. Because of the inquiry Eddie hires "the best lawyer in the city" who as we know is under Atwood's thumb. It is during this line of questioning the lawyer is able to go into Eddie's jacket and steal his NZT. None of these things would have happened had the Blonde never been killed.
Answer: There was no mention of physical evidence like hairs or fibres, the only evidence the police had was an eye-witness placing Eddie at the scene at the time the murder occurred; the eye-witness failed to I.D. Eddie in the line-up he was called to at the police station so Eddie was released, as the police had no case.
Answer: It was mentioned that the room was wiped clean after the murder. It was probably Atwood who set it all up because he was on NZT and needed some more.
Answer: Did you watch the movie? Lol... Eddie was called in and questioned about the murder. He was able to beat the case because the eyewitness couldn't pick him out of a line-up. Remember, his lawyer arranged to have a line-up full of men that looked just like Eddie.
The point of a line-up is to make everyone look similar to the actual suspect. So, the lawyer didn't do anything shady, and it would have been the police's job to have similar-looking people. A line-up of a mix of people is kind of a movie/TV trope, and the film implying the lawyer rigged the lineup fits into that trope.
Question: There's a scene toward the end of the movie where Adam sits down with his therapist (Katie). The camera shows a full frontal body shot of Adam as he's sitting down. His pants are wet. It looks like he urinated in his pants. But his wet pants aren't addressed. I don't think I missed anything. Or did I?
Answer: His pants only look wet because of the lighting. The color of the pants and the shadows make it look that way but they aren't really wet.
Question: Being unable to believe Paul's existence, Clive attacked Paul by gripping his throat in the RV. Then Paul said "That's my fucking jorph. Get your fucking fingers out of there! If I get a jorph infection, you're dead!" What exactly does jorph mean? Where does the word come from?
Answer: Since Paul is an alien, his race would probably give their body parts names that are in their own native language. To humans, we have throats. To Paul's race, jorph is their word for throat.
It cannot be a throat as it is an opening, it is more likely an opening that acts like a human ear.
Answer: TV Tropes mentions that the big eye might be an enormous alligator, because alligators are known to live in sewers.
Alligator eyes are different from what was shown in the movie.