Question: Why didn't werewolf Remus kill the marauders in animagus from? What difference did it make if they were in animal form then human form?
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: It's been established that the grandfather has no knowledge of Corrine's children. When they come across a copy of his will, it states that if it was ever discovered that Corrine had children from her first marriage, she would lose everything. Since he never knew he had grandchildren why was this clause ever added?
Answer: Because Connie and her husband were related (he was her uncle) and any children would be a product of incest. And if it was ever found out they had children, it would bring shame and disgrace to the family name.
Question: (Spoiler alert) If Annabelle and Dr. Trent simply wanted to murder Frederick, what was the point of Dr. Trent attempting to dispose of Frederick's body in the acid? Why the elaborate scheme to have him accidentally killed by someone else if they were going to destroy his body in acid anyway? They could have simply hit him over the head and dumped him in the pit.
Question: At the beginning of the film when Gordon is turning on the Bat signal, Ramirez asks Wuertz something about an investigation on the Batman. Wuertz replies that is an ongoing operation and throws some rubbish into the bin. At that moment, you can see a board with pictures of "possible Batman suspects", and you can see a picture of a "Man in the mountains, dressed in black." This man dressed in black looks like the "suit" Bruce Wayne wore when he was training with Ras al Gul in Batman Begins. My question is, how did the cops get that picture?
Answer: It's not a photo of Bruce Wayne in the mountains. The three pictures on the board are Elvis Presley, Abraham Lincoln and Bigfoot - in other words the police have no idea who the Batman is.
Question: The family's front door swings out rather than in. I know in places such as Florida, this is due to the hurricane weather so the door does not get blown in. However, in this movie, the family resides in California. We don't have front doors that swing outwards because we do not have hurricanes. Was this a mistake or was there a reason for the door to swing out?
Answer: Just because it's uncommon or even rare for an outer door to swing outwards, doesn't make it a mistake or even special.
Answer: It was probably (or close to being) a "revealing mistake" - how something was done for movie "convenience" or effect. It is much easier, faster, and dramatic if someone can run out of the house and immediately attack someone compared to having to take time to "open the door" (inward, like it is usually done).
Question: In the infirmary, when the Alien gets close to Ripley, and then (we realise why later in the movie) pulls back and leaves her, because she is carrying the queen chestburster, why doesn't the Alien hold her, take her with him, into the vent system and cocoon her like we see the others do to all those other humans in Aliens? It seems to be remiss of the creature to let her run around, as opposed to guarding her, especially since it seems to be a "guard."
Answer: Well at the time I'm sure it was just to keep the story moving but as far as the lore, this alien is a different breed (A Runner). They are meant more for acquiring food for the hive were as the drones (from Alien and Aliens) create the hive and the cocoon to hold incapacitated people. The drones can also be used for defending the queen/hive, scouting or gathering hosts for the facehuggers.
Chosen answer: 2 Reasons; 1. The entire rest of the prison was trying to find it and kill it. The Alien is fast and strong but if spent most of its time hovering around Ripley, it would be outmatched and killed. 2. The Alien probably knew that Ripley was an ally of the prisoners. They weren't trying to hurt her, so she didn't need guarding.
For 1) No, not yet they weren't trying to kill it, at this point in the movie noone believed her except possibly a deranged convict (lotssa help he'd be in any case) 2) That one is a little harder to dispel, but nevertheless, the alien would probably want to drag her, hide her, somewhere in the depths of the complex, just to be safe, and certainly to be present and available as a guard when the chestburster actually hatches.
Question: I'm not familiar with the law so if someone could answer two questions I would be very thankful. 1. In the very last case, the defendant discovers that anyone not arraigned before midnight is set free which causes him to waive the right to refuse the reading of the information. What exactly does this mean? 2. Dan immediately starts reading off the list of information getting the case turned over to a grand jury. How can Dan reading the information get the case turned over to a grand jury if the defendant waived the rights?
Answer: The jails are overcrowded, so any petty offenders whose case isn't heard by midnight will be let go. The defendant wants the details of his case read (Instead of just the typical summary of the case that Mack gives Harry) because he knows it'll take a while and run out the clock on the midnight deadline, also sparing him the grand jury trial. Dan speed-recites the document quickly enough for Harry to rule on the case and bang his gavel just at the stroke of midnight.
Question: Why didn't Triton kill or at least try and hurt Ursula with his sceptre instead of trying to destroy the contract? If destroying her is all it takes to nullify the contract, as seen at the end when Eric drives the ship into Ursula, killing her, then why didn't he do that instead of signing his own name saving Ariel and becoming one of Ursula's garden along with all the other merpeople she transformed too? Or better still, use his sceptre to turn the merpeople back to normal and then they all overthrow Ursula together?
Answer: 1. He's not a murderer. 2. As we see, he's not able to break Ariel's contract, so he wouldn't be able to break the other merpeoples' contracts either.
You Can't Win 'Em All - S4-E22
Question: I recently saw this episode for the first time in a few years and one scene seemed altered. When Cindy was asked about which side an egg would fall from a rooster, she said "neither side cause roosters don't lay eggs." For many years her answer was "neither side cause roosters crow...HENS lay eggs." This did not appear edited but was there more than one version produced which explains the difference in her line?
Answer: I watched this episode (well, only the part in question, once I found it) three times. Once on Hulu, once on YouTube (poor quality), and once on VCR tape a friend had made years ago (pretty grainy). All three times, Cindy replied the same way, and it doesn't quite match either version you submitted. The line is, "It won't roll off at all, 'cause roosters don't lay eggs." But I could totally hear, in my mind, the line you suggest in Cindy's voice. Cindy was sort of known for being a little snotty. Throughout the series, particularly in later seasons, a number of her lines took on the kind of mocking "not-this...THAT" prosody that this kind of utterance calls for. I wonder if you might be confusing her intonation from another line in another episode for this one. But assuming you are remembering correctly, then there must have been more than one version, as I also saw no hint of editing - not even a change in camera angle.
Question: At the end, Chip gets airlifted to hospital because of the fall he sustained jumping from the top of the dish. But after he's discharged, would he be arrested by the police and convicted after everything he did throughout the whole movie? eg. Stalking, harassment, stealing, breaking and entering, making a false call to the police, spying, beating up Robin's new boyfriend, etc.
Answer: More than likely yes. And most probably sent to a phyciatric hospital.
Answer: Could be very likely a no. I live in Alaska where someone attacked two women, was found "incompetent to stand trial" and released, and then he stabbed a woman in the back. She's now paralyzed from the waist down and he has again been deemed incompetent. He was released to psychiatric care, but if they deem him not a danger at any point, he can be released and nobody he's attacked would be notified about it. There's a really upsetting article about it on the anchorage daily news website, actually.
Question: Kind of a long question but please bear with me. In one episode, Catherine and Vince have to rescue a boy who was being chased by a man who murdered his father. The boy claims to have a letter from his father detailing a crime that occurred and how he was killed for betraying the man. The end of the episode has the boy reading the letter out loud in court. The judge asks to see it and after a quick look over, he gives it to the man who was after the boy. When the man looks at it, there's nothing on the paper but squiggly lines. The judge then has the man arrested for murder. Why would the judge do this? There were no witnesses. All they had was the word of a boy and a piece of paper with nothing but wavy lines on it. No real evidence was presented to the judge at all.
Answer: (Episode 1x19 "Everything is Everything") It's not a regular court or judge, it's a Gypsy "kris" (court) to determine a new judgement for the boy, Tony, and it's headed by Milo, who is the Gypsy King. Milo had two sons, elder Eric (Tony's dead father) and Vick (Tony's uncle), who framed Eric for theft from the family business, and it was Milo (he didn't know the truth) who held the earlier "kris" which declared Eric, his wife and son, Tony, to be "marime" as if they're all dead and had them banished from the community. Then Tony's parents were in a fatal car accident in Chicago, and before Eric died he told Tony the truth about how and why Vick framed him. Now at the new "kris" Tony has the chance to speak to prove his father's innocence, and tells everyone that Vick lied and stole the money, then framed his father because Eric had been next in line to be the Gypsy King. Milo tells Tony that his word isn't enough for a verdict and he must show proof. Tony tells his grandfather that Eric gave him a letter, while on his deathbed, in order to clear his name and punish the guilty. When Tony pretends to read the letter (remember, we learned Tony can't read), he starts out as if the letter was written to his father, Eric, and cleverly pretends that it was written by Vick's accomplice from the theft (Vick's friend sitting behind him, who also works at the body shop), admitting to the frame-up. As Tony keeps "reading" we see Vick turn around to his accomplice and say, "You fool!" for the letter's admission of guilt, and then the accomplice replies loudly, "I didn't write no letter... You said nobody could prove nothin'!" for everyone to hear. So after the truth has come out, Milo shows Vick the letter which only has squiggly lines on it, just so Vick understands that even though the letter wasn't real, he and his accomplice still admitted their guilt for the theft, and now they will be "marime" as if they're dead and banished from the community. Vick did not murder Tony's father, and he's not arrested.
Question: After having so many disappointments over the way that Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was filmed, Roald Dahl swore he would never be involved in any movie that was based on one of his books. How then was the rights to turn the novel "The Witches" into a movie acquired? Wouldn't the director have needed Roald's permission?
Answer: "The Witches" was made twenty years after "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", and in that time television adaptations had been made of "The BFG" and "Danny the Champion of the World" of which Dahl approved, so presumably he had relaxed his view of adaptations of his books - however he did hate the ending of The Witches film.
Question: When Stewie is talking to Brian about songs not addressing baby issues, Brian says to Stewie "Well how could they address baby issues? Children's songs are written by adults. And dollars to donuts, white adults." Stewie then replies saying "Who are you mad at, Brian?" and Brian then says "How much time you got?" Did I miss a joke or something? What exactly was "And dollars to donuts, white adults" supposed to mean?
Chosen answer: "Dollars to donuts" is just a colorful expression meaning you're pretty sure about something (similar to saying "100 to 1" which in betting terms mean I'll put up $100 I'm right and you put up $1 that I'm wrong). Brian is just suggesting baby songs are written by white adults because he's saying white people don't have real problems.
Question: When Stewie says he is going to write a song and that Brian can help, Brian replies saying "Well, I did write a musical about Alexander Hamilton." Stewie then looks puzzled by what Brian said and Brian says to Stewie "Not that one." First, who exactly is the Alexander Hamilton that Brian was talking about? And second, what exactly was Stewie supposed have been thinking of after Brian said Alexander Hamilton, but before Brian pointed out it "wasn't that one"?
Chosen answer: There's a Broadway musical called "Hamilton", which is about Alexander Hamilton. It's been very successful and won countless awards. Stewie gives Brian a look of disbelief that he wrote the popular "Hamilton" musical, so Brian is saying the musical he wrote is not the famous musical, but a different one.
Question: Why was Meredith so enthusiastic to make Tom "lose everything"? All she wanted was for him to be transferred or quit so he didn't find out about the changes on the production line, but she is asking him to see pictures of his family and trying to send him to Austin which would be sold, instead of another place. The book even mentions that Meredith was the one who was aiming to sell Austin. Why not just transfer Tom to another place and job in Digicom?
Answer: She needs to heavily discredit him in order to cover up her own mistakes. She wants to transfer him to Austin and then sell it so she can do it quietly and without ado.
Question: After Pigeon Toady finds Junior and Tulip with the baby girl, he returns to Conservatoire to make the report to Hunter. While Hunter strategizes in tracking down Junior and Tulip, Toady points out that they don't know where they going. That reduces Hunter in planning to change the address of the baby's homing beacon. Why doesn't Toady use his phone to call Hunter once he finds Junior and Tulip, and why doesn't he continue to follow them?
Chosen answer: Toady is intent on impressing Hunter by reporting Junior and Tulip to him. He was likely so eager to report Junior and Tulip to Hunter that he forgot all about where Junior and Tulip were going off too, but instead to let Hunter know about what was happening and likely be given some recognition from him.
Question: McCoy joins Kirk for a drink, revealing a bottle he found in Chekov's locker. Firstly, what was he doing in Chekov's locker? Secondly, what's with the two of them clinking glasses with a third drink? The locker and the clinking might suggest Chekov was dead, as they might have to fill in if Anton Yelchin had died before filming was complete, but that's not what happened. Chekov is very much alive in the next scene.
Chosen answer: Why Bones might have been going through Chekov's locker is addressed in another answer. The third glass is not for Chekov - who, as you point out, is alive - it's in memory of Jim's dad, George Kirk, who (as Bones mentions in this scene and as shown in Star Trek 2009) died on the same day Jim was born. Because of this fact, Jim's birthday always reminds him of his dad's death, so they pour a glass, and raise a toast, in his honour every year.
The director reportedly said the 3rd glass was a late addition. Perhaps it can serve both purposes, the scripted intention as well as a subtle tribute. See #7 in https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/star-trek-beyond-justin-lin-simon-pegg/.
Question: On the way to Starbase Yorktown, McCoy joins Kirk for a drink; Kirk is already drinking something illegal. McCoy shows him something he found in Chekov's locker, and they both enjoy it tremendously. Exactly what was McCoy doing rummaging around in Chekov's locker? Was it some sort of contraband check?
Chosen answer: This scene from "Star Trek: Beyond" is an alternate-timeline version of the scene from "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" in which McCoy brings Kirk an illegal bottle of Romulan Ale as a birthday gift (so we know that McCoy isn't above bending or breaking the law a little in obtaining a gift for Kirk). In "Beyond," this scene was re-imagined with Kirk already drinking illegal Saurian Brandy for his birthday, and McCoy surprises him with a very old bottle of Scotch Whisky from Chekov's locker. More than likely, McCoy knew very well that Chekov kept a prized bottle of Scotch in his locker, and McCoy simply took the bottle. What was Chekov going to do, report the Chief Medical Officer to the Captain?
Or in the future it is not above humanity to be willing to share things more than now. Maybe Chekov had given his approval for anyone to partake in a drink that he may possess, as it is no big deal.
The point is made in Beyond that McCoy "took" the scotch from Chekov's locker. If Chekov freely shared his prized bottle of scotch, McCoy should have said, "Here's a gift from Mr. Chekov, and he sends best wishes." To me, the larger question is why was Chekov hiding a bottle of liquor in a "locker" when he could have more easily kept it in his personal quarters? Perhaps because the contents of personal quarters were easily monitored, so Chekov had to HIDE it in a less conspicuous area.
Question: When Iracebeth takes Mirana back in time to when a young Mirana ate the tarts and lied about it, why would the adult Mirana continue to deny having eaten them?
Answer: The way I interpreted the scene is that Mirana subconsciously altered her own memory to convince herself that she had not eaten the tart to avoid the guilt of the resulting accident. This is a real phenomenon, so it's perfectly plausible. If my assumption is correct, this scene shows Mirana realizing for the first time that she is in fact responsible for everything that has happened since due to a single lie she told.
Answer: I don't think she was actually denying it at that point, just reciting the answer she knew she'd given originally.
Question: How did Stine find the kids and the Abominable Snowman at the ice rink?
Chosen answer: He found the book in his house, saw the title, and just naturally assumed that they were there because the snowman needs to be in a place where it is cold.
The book was with the kids not in the house.
Well my guess is that he followed the destruction that the abominable snowman left behind. He also must have checked his books over as well and saw which one was missing because there were some books on the floor.
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: Remus, when in his werewolf form (and before the werewolf potion was invented) did not display aggression towards any other animals, only humans. This allowed James, Sirius and Pettigrew to be able control him at all times when they were transformed into their animagus forms.
raywest ★