TedStixon

1st Sep 2020

Halloween 4 (1988)

Question: Did Jamie acting like Michael at the movie's end happen because of the night's events, or when she touched his hand, or what?

Rob245

Answer: I think it's really up to the viewer to decide. I personally always took it as she simply snapped and briefly lost her mind and became just like her uncle for an instant. But given she and Michael share a psychic connection in the sequel, I've seen other people suggest that perhaps she was under his "influence" in some way.

TedStixon

31st Aug 2020

Halloween 4 (1988)

Question: There's talk of Rachel having to cancel her date with Brady. Why couldn't he just go along with her taking Jamie trick or treating?

Rob245

Answer: Rachel probably doesn't want to ruin his whole Halloween night by making him a third wheel. She likely figures they can just reschedule and he can find other stuff to do since it's a holiday. There's also the chance they had other certain "things" planned that they couldn't do around Jamie.

TedStixon

31st Aug 2020

Halloween (2018)

Question: What's his motivation for going after Laurie after all these years? That and why transfer him?

Rob245

Answer: You could argue that Laurie is "unfinished business" for Michael, since she escaped him years ago. But it's important to note that in the movie, Michael doesn't seem to be going after her specifically at first. He arrives in town and just begins to start randomly killing people again. He doesn't really go after Laurie until the doctor specifically drives him to her neck of the woods, because he (the doctor) is obsessed with the idea of Michael and Laurie encountering each other again. So there is also the chance that she wasn't really Michael's target at all. I think it's kind of purposely left ambiguous what Michael's "goals" are in the film. As for the second question, it's answered in the opening scene - he's been at the hospital to be studied. But the state has lost interest in the case since no real developments have occurred. So rather than wasting more time/resources on him, they're instead dumping him into a maximum security facility where he'll basically be left to rot.

TedStixon

31st Aug 2020

Halloween 4 (1988)

Question: Why transfer him at night in bad weather? That and given his past why not have him cuffed to the gurney and have armed guards there regardless of his comatose state?

Rob245

Answer: The best in-universe answer I could give you to your first question is that Michael just happened to be scheduled to be transferred at night and the weather ended up being crummy. I've been transferred between hospitals at night before. (Albeit, I'm not a homicidal maniac.) But honestly, the real answer is simply... "because movie." It's a horror movie - it's just more dramatic for the scene to be set at night during lousy weather. It wouldn't be nearly as effective a scene if it was during the day in nice weather. A dark, stormy night is sort-of a convention of the genre. As for the second question, he was severely burned in a fire and has been in a comatose state for years and years. Realistically, it was safe to assume he wouldn't wake up, and even if he did, a normal person's muscles would have likely softened into jelly in the meantime. They assumed they'd be safe... but they were wrong.

TedStixon

The question would be why did the characters transfer him at night in bad weather, not why did the film makers set it up like that. The viewer may thought he or she missed the in-film explanation or was looking for someone with expertise in transferring patients to provide an answer. And again, was there any in-film explanation given or persons with experience in transporting patients like Michael (albeit without supernatural powers). Pointing out the caveat of character's actions isn't realistic because it was scripted that way is fine, but pointing out that a movie is a movie isn't a valid answer (or correction).

Bishop73

I did amend my answer slightly before I saw your response. I really don't think my initial answer was that invalid though. That's honestly the truth - it was done that way for dramatic purposes, and any other answer would be pure speculation.

TedStixon

If no in-film explanation is given, speculation is OK as long as it aligns with something that would happen in real life (although I would suggest saying it's speculation). Sometimes people do ask question about why film makers would do something, and an answer like "to make it more dramatic" would be acceptable.

Bishop73

20th Aug 2020

Halloween 5 (1989)

Question: Why does Jamie calling him uncle stop him? That and why honor her request to see his face?

Rob245

Answer: Sorry about that and thank you.

Rob245

Answer: The question was more-or-less answered in a previous question, so I'll copy part of my answer here: Director Dominique Othenin-Girard made the puzzling decision to try and humanize Michael in this film by showing he still had some traces of emotion that could be momentarily reached. Thus when Jamie talks to him, he briefly recovers his humanity, takes off his mask and sheds a single tear. Basically, Othenin-Girard felt it made Michael scarier by showing his humanity could be momentarily "reached." Of course, it really doesn't make sense and contradicts the other films... but it was just a decision the director made.

TedStixon

20th Aug 2020

Halloween 4 (1988)

Answer: Thank you.

Rob245

Answer: It's tricky to say, as the films have contradictory explanations, and there are different "timelines/universes" in the series. But in the context of this film, Michael is for some reason compelled to kill his family for reasons unknown. Presumably he's just finishing the job he started by killing his sister Judith decades earlier. (They try to give a more concrete explanation in the movie "The Curse of Michael Myers," but it's... flimsy at best. And is contradicted by the following film).

TedStixon

Answer: Because he's a psychopath. And purely and simply evil.

ChristmasJonesfan

20th Aug 2020

Fantastic Four (2005)

Question: Is there a scene where Reid turns into a hose to dose Doom?

Smoke

Answer: Yes... at least in one version of the film. In the theatrical version of the film, Thing merely uses his foot to channel water towards Doctor Doom. However, in the version released on home video, Reid turns his body into a "hose" of sorts to channel the water towards Doom. Evidently, they couldn't quite finish some of the effects (such as Reid turning his body into a "hose") on time for the theatrical version, but finished them for the DVD/Blu-Ray. The DVD/Blu-Ray version also has a few other minor tweaks, such as the music is also slightly different in the final battle. (It is important to note that confusingly, the theatrical version was released in some territories on home video and is also used on some streaming platforms - notably Netflix used the theatrical version).

TedStixon

20th Aug 2020

Avengers: Endgame (2019)

Question: How is Rogers alive at the end? Shouldn't he have died of old age?

MikeH

Answer: It's safe to assume that due to the treatments he received that gave him his super-powers, he also ages a bit more slowly compared to other people. At least that's the way I took it.

TedStixon

Answer: While he may not really look like it in the film, based on information dates given in the film, Rogers would be 106 at then end. While not a common age to live to, it's certainly obtainable as non-super enhanced people have lived past that age (122 years old being the verified record). Also, it should be noted, people don't "die of old age." Being old doesn't kill you, disease, illness or injuries do.

Bishop73

22nd Jul 2020

XXX (2002)

Question: Did the 'Ahab' feature AI? If not, it would have been very ridiculous if it hit something on the water they couldn't possibly have accounted for.

Answer: It was very likely programmed to be able to detect and avoid obstacles in its path.

TedStixon

14th Aug 2020

Predator 2 (1990)

Answer: There's really no reason for it not to. Predators are hunters that hunt for both sport and for honor. It likely saw hunting humans in an urban setting (especially one as chaotic as LA is portrayed in the film) as a potential greater challenge, and thus a greater reward.

TedStixon

Note: Cities are sometimes compared to jungles. So for the predator there is hardly a difference.

lionhead

Answer: The Predator kills humans for sport and wants to kill as many as possible (for fun and status). There is "critical mass" in cities (urban areas are heavily/densely populated) but relatively few people live in or are found in jungles. The Predator went where he was most likely to encounter MANY people and thereby maximize his head count. (Why spend all day waiting to see if you can find a human in the jungle when you know there are hundreds of thousands - even millions - of people in major cities/urban areas?).

Answer: Changing the location from a jungle to an urban setting is a way for the filmmakers to keep a film franchise from becoming repetitive and predictable.

raywest

Answer: I believe the reason was, it was looking for the ultimate challenge. In the first movie, it was the first time they had ever been defeated. They considered humans nothing more than animals to be hunted for sport. Now humans had evolved to the point, where they learn to fight back. So the Predators went to the city looking for someone who was smart, tough and shows no fear. He was studying Danny Glover, following him and taunting him.

10th Aug 2020

Halloween 4 (1988)

Question: Why is Michael being transferred back to Smith's Grove?

Rob245

Answer: Likely because keeping Michael in a maximum security facility was seen as a waste of time/resources given he had been in a coma for years.

TedStixon

10th Aug 2020

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Question: Why did Peter never question where the black suit came from and decide to keep it? Obviously as the film progressed, the symbiote started to influence him more, but in the beginning 1) He didn't wear it all the time; 2) He is aware that there is SOMETHING up with the suit (for example, when he looked in the mirror after the "damn door" scene and saw a vision and then quickly put the suit in the suitcase). I also know that the suit never triggered his spidey sense, but surely Peter at some point must have wondered "where did this suit come from and how is it boosting me physically?"

Answer: To be fair, he does take a sample of the suit to Dr. Connors to be analyzed, so he is showing some initiative into trying to find out what it is. But I always took it as a "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" situation for Peter. He knows that it came from somewhere, but given it seems to increase his power and has an intoxicating quality (as he says, it feels good when he's wearing it), he chooses not to question it too much. Remember, the suit becomes an addiction to Peter... and I can also tell you as someone who has had problems with severe addiction to alcohol and pills in the past, at a certain point you do stop questioning things because you're just craving the rush too much.

TedStixon

Question: Did Bruce Lee manage to film all his scenes before he died?

Answer: Yes, he filmed all of his scenes before he died. He died on July 20, 1973 - only six days before the film debuted in Hong Kong, and only a month before the film's US debut.

TedStixon

Question: How did Jack know Greg was in the bathroom to give him the truth serum? Jack was outside and we simply heard Bernie call out "Gay Gay", but still he could have been anywhere?

Answer: It's not exactly hard to find someone in a small/mid-sized establishment like they one they were in. There's only so many places Greg could be. Jack probably just correctly presumed he was in the bathroom since he wasn't outside.

TedStixon

11th Jul 2020

The Sopranos (1999)

Answer: The ending is purposely ambiguous and open to interpretation. The series creator once said: "There's more than one way of looking at the ending. That's all I'll say." He's also refused to outright explain what the ending meant.

TedStixon

Actually, the creator of the Sopranos accidentally revealed it to be a death scene in an interview: https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a32869286/sopranos-creator-accidentally-confirms-tony-death-series-finale/.

ctown28

11th Jul 2020

X-Men 3 (2006)

Question: Why does Mystique lie there after being cured? She just waits to be re arrested instead of putting on a guard's coat and fleeing?

Rob245

Answer: She's just lying there because she's in shock of not only losing her power, but being betrayed by her only real friend in the world. She needs a moment to process what just happened. It's not unreasonable for her to be doing so - I'd probably do the same thing if my whole world fell apart in a single instance. It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but I also don't believe she's re-arrested. I think when you see her talking to the feds later, it's because she sought them out herself. (But I could be wrong about that).

TedStixon

11th Jul 2020

X-Men 3 (2006)

Question: After Mystique's "cured" and talks to the Feds what do they do with her?

Rob245

Answer: In all likelihood she goes to prison, but there's a good chance she may have worked out a deal for a reduced sentence (or even possibly immunity) for informing on the location of Magneto's base camp and other information related to Magneto.

TedStixon

6th Apr 2020

Knives Out (2019)

Question: How did blood drop reached Marta's shoes, even though it was too far from Christopher Plummer in the suicide scene? (00:53:50)

Answer: To add slightly to the other answer, evidently some of the blood in the scene had to be digitally removed for the film to secure a PG-13 rating, which explains why we don't see any actual spray/gush. But we are to assume that a drop managed to splash onto her shoe when he slit his throat.

TedStixon

Answer: The rationale is that blood can travel quite far from an artery and her shoe therefore got the droplet on it even from the doorway - however it does seem to me that the filmic portrayal is lacking, since you don't actually see any instance of spray. Rian Johnson' script says "Blood gushes." What we see in the scene is that it is trickling down his cut - a bit.

Sammo

Question: After Jason kills Jim and Suzi on Crystal Lake, how does Jim's boat end up being at the harbor next morning? Crystal Lake is not connected to the sea. It's just surrounded by land, right?

Bunch Son

Chosen answer: To the best of my knowledge, this is just a bit of a continuity mistake. While previous films have not indicated Crystal Lake is connected to the ocean, this film portrays it as being connected. You just kinda gotta go with it for the movie to work.

TedStixon

Chosen answer: Considering the film shows Jason emerging from under the water, yes, it's clear that Jason swam the rest of the way after leaving the ship. (He was presumably following the lifeboat).

TedStixon

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.