Question: How was Sherlock and his home team able to just take Moriarty's fortune at the end? What exactly were the grounds established justifying taking all of his stuff?
TedStixon
24th Jul 2023
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)
20th Jul 2023
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
Question: Towards the end, Eddie resorts to assorted cartoon antics in order to make the Weasels "die laughing." But Eddie is not in Toontown, he's performing with real objects inside the Acme factory, and subject to normal physics again. So, how is it he managed to survive multiple bowling-bowl blows to the head, being electrocuted, etc?
Answer: The movie establishes, pretty quickly, that it doesn't necessarily follow real-world logic and physics, and plays fast and loose with them. After all, it's a world where humans and cartoons co-exist side-by-side. Lots of things happen by pure dumb luck, etc. It would stand to reason that Eddie could survive silly things like being hit in the head with a bowling ball, etc. You could also make the argument that the Acme factory could follow cartoon logic, especially as it seems to be literally right next to Toon Town (they even cut a hole in the wall directly to Toon Town) and was run by a man who loved the Toons.
20th Jul 2023
Mask (1985)
Question: I read that the real Rocky Dennis had his body donated to the UCLA Medical Centre. Why was his body donated?
Answer: His body was donated to the UCLA Centre for Genetics Research, presumably so doctors and geneticists could study him and learn more about his condition. Hopefully, this would help them to better treat other patients like him in the future.
11th Jul 2023
General questions
I remember seeing a film in theatres in the 90s when I was a kid. I think it was a children's sports film. I seem to recall there being a scene where a boy spots another boy through a gap in a shelf at the store and remarks something like, "What a hunk!" At least I think it was two boys... one may have been a tomboyish girl, though. And I think it had something to do with football. Ring anyone's bell? Trying to rewatch childhood movies and it just popped into my head.
Answer: Sounds like the movie Little Giants.
Looked it up and that is 100% it. Thanks.
14th Jul 2023
The Incredible Hulk (1978)
Question: How does David get one job after another without having a résumé or any references?
Answer: Even today, it's totally possible to get hired for random temporary jobs without a résumé or references, especially if you're getting paid under the table. Most of my early jobs were like that. Local businesses I'm familiar with needed a hand for a few weeks, and I needed a little extra money. Boom! I got a temporary under-the-table job where I got a couple hundred bucks a week in cash to just come in and help out. Technically not legal, but lots of places do it. And from what I've read, back in the 70s a lot of these types of gigs were more widespread, hence it was easy to find them.
14th Jul 2023
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Question: At the start, she was to drive the truck to get gas. She never got there, and yet was able to drive all over. How?
Answer: Furiosa was not getting gas for the war rig; it is presumably fully fuelled. Furiosa was to fill the tank with gas to bring it back to be used for other vehicles.
If you're going to get gas, why have a full tank in the war rig? Put enough in it to be able to get to Gas town, pulling the attached round tank. Fill the round tank and fill up the war rig. Return with lots of gas in a full round tank and a full war rig.
I believe there is some confusion here with how the gas tank system works on the war rig. The truck itself has its own gas tank; the tank that is being towed is completely separate. It's exactly the same as real-life gas trucks.
Why does that question even need to be answered? You're going to use gas going there and coming back. It doesn't matter if the war rig was full or not when it left. Assuming they're going to be gassing the war rig up once they get there to collect the gas, it's going to come back with the exact same amount of gas no matter what. So it really makes no difference whatsoever. Also, what happens if they get delayed along the way? If they only have enough gas to get to Gas Town, but something happens, they'll just get stuck.
I agree, it's not very smart to fill the war rig with just enough gas to get to town. But it sounds like they're saying take whatever you can out of the war rig, and you'd have that much extra gas when they get back. For example, if the rig held 25 gallons and only needed 5 gallons to get to town, you can take out 20 gallons. The rig then arrives in town empty, fills up, and comes back with 20 gallons in the tank. So now you have 40 gallons instead of just 20 (plus whatever the tank holds).
I think the big point is what Furiosa was planning. She filled the gas tank of the truck up to be able to go further with it; she wasn't planning on getting the gas anyway.
Ok, I can understand that... but I still don't see why it's a question that needs to be answered, hahaha. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why every tiny detail needs an explanation or answer, especially when it doesn't really matter for the story.
Answer: What she did most likely took months of planning. Who she could trust to help her. How exactly she could smuggle the girls out, and most importantly, gaining the trust of the boss to the point where he believed she was his obedient slave who could never betray him.
Answer: Nobody knew the war rig was full of gas. They thought she was going to fill the tanker and come back, not smuggle out the girls.
Sorry, can't believe that. The boss guy controlled everything. He would know where and how much gas there was. Also, lowering the truck empty would be a lot different than lowering it fully loaded.
The truck was supposed to be empty when it left. She was taking an empty tank to be filled, but smuggled the wives inside. It weighed probably 300 pounds more than it was supposed to, but that would be imperceptible to the people operating the elevator. The war rig likely weighs several tons.
It's not empty, it is filled with water. The wives were hiding in the tractor.
11th Jul 2023
General questions
It seems to me that older shows, for the most part, had more "stand-alone" episodes: you could easily watch them if you missed the previous episode or two. If I am correct, this is why characters often had new love interests for just one episode. Nowadays, a show is often called a "series" and all episodes must be watched, even a "Previously on..." recap doesn't cover everything. Any thoughts on why this is?
Answer: Well, in the old days, people couldn't really watch whenever they wanted or even record what they wanted to see. So trying to follow a continuing show was a lot harder. That's why there were way more shows where every episode was standalone, as you didn't have to bother watching every single one to be able to follow it. You could skip a few without a problem. These days, watching all episodes is a lot easier because of recording and digital releases. You can watch whenever you want, in the right order.
Answer: There's a lot of factors that go into this. I think the biggest one is that seasons in general have gotten shorter, meaning there is less room for stand-alone episodes. It used to be the norm for shows to have 20+ episodes per season, whereas now, seasons with 13 or fewer episodes are more common. (This is for many reasons, including higher production costs, viewership fluctuations, streaming making shorter seasons more in vogue, etc.) And as a result, many shows now just basically feel like one big movie that's split up into chapters/episodes since there's less time for side-stories or stand-alone episodes. There's good and bad to this. On one hand, it means shows need to be more efficient and concise, and there's likely to be fewer dull moments. But on the other hand, it also means that there's slightly less time for side-characters, sub-plots, world-building, etc. So it's a double-edged sword. Also, "show" and "series" have always been used interchangeably. That's nothing new.
I don't remember what year it was, but if I understand correctly, one of the results of one of the writers' strikes a while back was reduced episodes to make a complete season or a half season (with some exceptions, like daily shows).
Yeah, from what I recall, during the 2007 writers' strike, a lot of seasons had to be produced with fewer episodes due to lost time from the several months the strike lasted. And that did help set a certain precedent that many shows could be successful with fewer episodes per season. Although, I think it wasn't really until about five years later that you started to see shorter seasons becoming more widespread.
Answer: I also think another point is, there's just so many more shows being produced today, so we see more examples of these types of series shows. And, if more shows are being produced, there's more competition to get viewers to watch live (as opposed to recording to a DVR or streaming). Companies that buy ad time during a show know if viewers are recording, they can skip their ads (which is why we see more countermeasures to this).
Answer: Adding to the other answers: In TV's earliest days (from the 1950s), shows had more episodes per season, over 30. During the summer hiatus, fewer reruns were shown until the new Fall season. That resulted in self-contained episodes and one-time characters or situations that were rarely mentioned again. Episodes could be shown in any order, without losing continuity. The half-hour sitcoms were like extended skits. Many early TV shows were written by radio-era writers when maintaining a consistent, non-visual storyline was more challenging. It was just a different way of doing things. As TV evolved, plots became extended throughout a season with fewer episodes. Keeping viewers involved and guessing what happens in the next episode helps ratings.
4th Jan 2019
The Terminator (1984)
Question: How exactly do both the Terminator and Kyle find addresses? We are led to believe that is the reason for the phone books, but none of the addresses in the phone books match up to the addresses where either the first Sarah is killed, nor the apartment of our Sarah.
Answer: My two cents: The T-800 Terminator does indeed, rip out the page of a phonebook for the address, but remember, he was looking for any and all Sarah Connors, not a specific address. He did not know which Sarah would give birth to John Connor, so by process of elimination he began terminating any woman with the name Sarah Connor. He did plug the first Sarah Connor (a housewife), then went to kill the other Sarah Connors in the phone book.
I already gave that answer, but apparently that's not what the question is asking.
Answer: Gonna be totally honest... that might just be nothing more than a simple continuity error. They accidentally made a phonebook prop that didn't match up with the locations where they shot, and assumed most people wouldn't notice or care. (And to be even more honest, I never noticed it until I saw this question today.)
Answer: Both the T-800 and Kyle look up Sarah's address in the phonebook and it's Kyle who rips out a page. Neither uses a police computer; that's the T-1000 in Terminator 2.
But that doesn't answer the question (and it's already been mentioned) since the information in the phonebook appears wrong.
Answer: Kyle, as we are shown, uses a police computer to find the addresses. The T800 just uses the phonebook as you mentioned. He rips the page out and takes it with him.
Except 2 of the addresses in the phone book don't match. So how does the Terminator find them using the phonebook?
The Terminator is just blindly killing everyone in the phone book whose name is Sarah Connor (apparently a common name). Process of elimination. So, the day he arrives, unrelated women named Sarah Connor start dropping like flies, and the police believe it's the work of a serial killer. Our heroine Sarah Connor barely escapes this sweeping extermination by sheer luck and Kyle's intervention.
You just described the plot. Were you trying to answer the question? Because the question still stands. (As it is, it's either a mistake or plot hole in the film).
Perhaps I'm not getting the question. What is meant by "none of the addresses in the phone books match up"? Match up to what, the murder scene addresses? I wasn't aware that the murder scene addresses were prominently displayed.
Exactly. The addresses seen don't match. Specifically the first Sarah Connor's house number is "14239", but in the phonebook it is listed as "1823." And the real Sarah Connor lives in an apartment but the phonebook doesn't list an apartment number.
Perhaps though this all doesn't matter because phone books can quickly become outdated, the phone book he found could be over a year old. Someone moves but can still be listed in the phone book with their old address. He could have gone to the addresses but found someone else living there and then asked where the previous owner might be, and he was told (or he forced them). This might be how he found all the Sarah Connors.
Are any of the Sarah's listed as living at 1823? I've not got access to the film right now to check.
The first is listed as "1823." The second is "2816." The 3rd is "309." Although after reviewing the scene and thinking about it, for "309" (which is supposedly our Sarah J Connor), the full address isn't actually seen and the apartment number could have been listed.
Reese never uses a police computer; that's the T-1000 in Terminator 2. He rips out the page from the phonebook. The T800 also uses the phonebook but is never shown ripping out a page.
3rd Jul 2023
The Ring (2002)
Question: In the end of the movie, when Aiden's dad was picking him up and taking him to the car, who was the black figure in the room staring out the window at 1 hour and 36 minutes into the movie? (01:36:44)
Answer: It's presumably one of the officers we saw in the previous scene since they've been through a relatively traumatic event. It's likely they were given a ride to pick up their son. (Alternately, it's also entirely possible that it's a crew member who got caught in the shot since they're out of focus in the background.)
14th Jun 2023
General questions
Why do people in some movies/TV put a blob of sunscreen on their nose? In real life, I typically see people rub sunscreen into their skin, all over themselves.
Answer: The sunscreen you are asking about is likely zinc oxide. It sits on the surface of the skin and scatters the sun's rays. The sunscreen rubbed into the skin, as you describe, doesn't contain zinc oxide, but rather contains chemicals that absorb the solar radiation and converts that energy to heat, which is then released from the body.
Answer: From what I recall, older sunscreens were much weaker than what we have now. And it was common to apply extra to certain areas of the body, like the nose since it sticks out from your face and is more likely to get sun damage. And the extra sunscreen created the white "blob" around the nose. So it just sort-of became a visual shorthand in films and TV for showing that someone is wearing sunscreen. And since people became used to it, it stuck around. It's currently also a good way to show that a character is rigid, set in their ways or old-fashioned, since it's not something you see too much anymore.
18th May 2023
The Avengers (2012)
Question: Why was Edward Norton replaced by Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner?
Answer: In addition to lionhead's answer, there are also rumors that Norton wanted more creative control over the character and franchise, as evidenced by the fact he did frequent uncredited rewrites on the set of "The Incredible Hulk" and also even ghost-directed a few scenes while director Louis Letterier was tied up with other obligations. Given the complexity of the MCU, the producers and studio didn't necessarily want cast-members to exercise more creative control over the films early on because it could undermine their long-term plans.
Answer: There were disagreements between him and Marvel about the contract. It's said Norton didn't want to be clung to a single character.
19th May 2023
When a Stranger Calls (1979)
Question: At the beginning, Jill tells the police that she believes the caller is watching her through the windows. Since he calls her, how is this possible since cell phones did not exist at the time this movie came out?
Answer: Sorry, editing my answer because I misunderstood the question. The caller is using a different phone line in the same house. It's possible to have multiple different landlines/phone-numbers in the same building. However, Jill doesn't realise this and probably assumes he's watching her from a different house using binoculars or something similar.
20th May 2023
Saw 3D (2010)
Question: In this film we see what happens to Dr Gordon after Saw. Were these shots filmed in 2003 when Saw was filmed, or were they filmed in 2010 with this film?
Chosen answer: They were filmed in 2010 for this film. When the original film was made, it was intended to be a one-and-done, direct-to-video movie. They didn't know that there would be more than a half-dozen sequels and that Dr. Gordon would be revealed as a mastermind all along, so they'd have no reason to film such scenes. A sequel wasn't even announced until the original film tested well during festival screenings, was given a theatrical release and became a big hit. You can also kind of tell because the first film and this film were shot on different mediums (film and digital) and have a different aesthetic, and the first film also didn't have the budget for some of the digital effects used in those scenes (such as digitally removing Gordon's food).
19th May 2023
General questions
Are there any TV series that were cancelled before a complete first season was even aired? I am mostly curious about sitcoms and dramas/thrillers, not reality shows.
Answer: Honestly, there have been numerous TV shows cancelled before a complete first season was aired. Another great example is cult-favorite sci-fi series "Firefly," which was cancelled before the 14 produced episodes finished airing. "Emily's Reasons Why Not" is another good example. It's a romantic comedy series that was cancelled after only one of the six produced episodes aired. (The remaining five episodes never aired on TV, but were quietly released on a DVD set.) "Viva Laughlin," a musical comedy-drama series produced by Hugh Jackman was cancelled after only two episodes, and none of the remaining episodes have aired or been given a DVD release. "Mockingbird Lane," a re-imagining of "The Munsters," was cancelled after it's pilot was aired as a TV-special, so the remainder of the first season was never produced. There's honestly probably hundreds of shows that were cancelled before a complete first season was aired.
I was wondering if there are contracts that require the entire first season to be shown, before a network can decide not to show another season. I guess not, based on the answers here.
Shows being pulled mid-season isn't indicative of what other shows' contracts consist of. Some shows may have had it in their contracts that the entire season be aired (there are shows that get pulled mid-season beyond season 1). I don't have personal knowledge because that would be a lot of contracts to read to find out. So maybe someone does. But there's plenty of shows that don't produce an entire season prior to being picked up, so it's possible all the episodes produced were aired.
Answer: So, so many. Drive comes to mind - Nathan Fillion thriller about an illegal road race, only had a few episodes before being pulled off air. "Selfie" (2014) with Karen Gillan and John Cho was cancelled by ABC after only 7 episodes. "Do No Harm" (2013) cancelled after 2 episodes. The Dictator (2012) starring Christopher Lloyd only had one episode.
Answer: One of the shortest TV shows ever was the 1997 series "Lawless," starring former NFL player Brian Bosworth. It was cancelled after the first episode. Also, "Cop Rock," a TV show in the 90s, was cancelled after only 11 episodes. "When The Whistle Blows," a TV sitcom in the 80s, also only lasted 11 episodes.
Answer: There was a police drama roughly 10 years ago called Golden Boy. It was about the youngest police Commissioner in NYPD history and kept hinting at a department-wide shootout that led to the man's promotion. It lasted 13 episodes.
Answer: Another show was called "Brimstone" and had actors Peter Horton and John Glover. The show only had 13 episodes.
The 1963 ABC "The Jerry Lewis Show" was originally planned for 40 episodes in the first season. It went off after 13 shows.
Answer: Outlaws 1986, was cancelled after a few episodes. Sitcom In Case of Emergency, with Kelly Hu, was cancelled after only a couple of episodes.
18th May 2023
Scream VI (2023)
Question: The events of Scream VI take place around Halloween, but it doesn't specify what year. A news reporter said that the Woodsboro killings took place in 2022 as if they happened a year ago, and Scream VI was released in March of 2023. So, do the events of Scream VI take place on Halloween of 2022 or 7 months in the future after the film's release date?
Answer: I think this is more "trivia" than mistake. There's no error in a film taking place a bit further ahead in time than in its release date.
Answer: Using some conjecture, if the film states the last killings took place in 2022 and treats it like "last year," you can assume it takes place around Halloween 2023. Films are allowed to take place in the future. They don't have to be set around their release date. So how is this a mistake?
3rd May 2023
Saw (2004)
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.
25th Apr 2023
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
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.
12th Apr 2023
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Question: What happened to Dack to take him out of commission during the assault on Hoth? He was rendered unconscious or dead before being able to fire the tow cable.
Answer: The back of their ship was struck by a laser-blast, which killed Dak. You hear the sound of a laser blast, see it for a split-second through the window, and then Dak's console explodes and he slumps over. (It's slightly unclear what exactly killed him, but it appears that either some of the energy from the blast hit him and/or he was killed by his equipment shorting out).
8th Apr 2023
The Nutty Professor (1996)
Question: Why is Sherman Klump still eating if he wants to lose weight so bad? It would gain a lot more weight if he keeps eating even though he was upset after being embarrassed and humiliated by Reggie at the club that night.
Answer: Sherman is having a binge-eating episode due to being sad and embarrassed about what happened. Often, when people have unhealthy relationships with certain substances (whether it be food, alcohol, drugs, etc.), they will rely on those substances to feel better when they're down, and may go on binges where they consume large portions of them. Especially if something bad has happened to them. I myself have struggled with multiple addiction issues in the past, and I've done exactly the same with food, alcohol and drugs. (Eating an entire pizza, downing an entire bottle of rum in a short span of time, etc. when I was feeling down.) It may not seem logical... Because it's not. You just want the bad feelings to go away, so you binge the things that make you feel better. That's exactly what Sherman is doing after being insulted by Reggie... Notice how over-the-top his eating is. He's literally pouring candy into his mouth and eating ice cream in a sloppy way. It's played for comedy, but it's actually not unrealistic at all.
2nd Apr 2023
Mask (1985)
Question: How did Rocky die? Was it because of his condition?
Answer: His official cause of death was listed as "sudden arrhythmic death syndrome," which is basically just when someone dies unexpectedly, usually during sleep. It's widely believed that it was caused by his disorder, as his disorder often causes early death, but to my knowledge it was never definitively proven.
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: They have direct evidence that Moriarty is trying to start an international conflict and trigger a war to profiteer from. It makes perfect sense for the police to seize Moriarty's assets and fortune since they're being used for and were attained from major criminal activity.
TedStixon