Question: I read that Jimmy was arrested and jailed for the murder of a man called Richard Eaton. Why not for the murder of Billy Batts, Morrie, any of the Lufthansa murders or any of his other many serious crimes? If it's because there wasn't enough evidence, how was there enough evidence to write a book and movie on it?
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: Why was there blood on Travers Goff's shirt when he died? I thought he died of tuberculosis. And what was the knife for?
Question: What artist/band performs "deck the halls" played when Jason, Marie and Eamon are having dinner with the children at the farmhouse?
Question: At the start of the film, Danny is given the paper and told he has to hand it in the next morning. At the end, Danny is at school ready to hand it in. Does that mean that aside from the black-and-white flashback scenes, the movie took place over 24 hours? It's hard to believe so much happened in such a short amount of time.
Chosen answer: Yes, apart from the flashbacks the whole movie is set over 24 hours.
Question: In real life, when are cops allowed to shoot people? I find it hard to believe Samuel Gerard would have been allowed to shoot Richard repeatedly in the torso just for running away from him. I know the glass was bulletproof in that scene, but Gerard didn't know that.
Chosen answer: Richard is a convicted murderer on the run. A police officer would be justified in shooting him to prevent him from injuring anyone or taking a hostage.
Answer: The Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner affirmed that law enforcement officers have the right to kill fleeing felons if they have a reasonable belief that allowing the subject that they're pursuing to escape would possibly cause more harm to others.
Answer: Samuel Gerard was not a police officer. He was a U.S. Marshal, and they are not governed by the same rules as police. Also being a U.S. Marshal Gerard would surely have known that any glass in any government building would be bulletproof for just such an occasion.
Question: The DNA test is a match, but later in the 2-3rd season we discover that Harry (foster father) had an affair with the real mother. Is Harry the real father and takes him but not his brother in because of that or not?
Answer: No, Harry is not the real father. While he did have an affair with Dexter's biological mother (Laura Moser), this was when she was his C.I. Dexter was already born at that point.
Question: At the end we discover the kid survived unscathed in the explosion, which makes one believe Ginny survived too. So what happened to her? Did the kid murder her?
Chosen answer: If we say Ginny did not survive, we assume two scenarios: 1.) Each key represents the personality that was killed off in Malcolm's psyche. So, all in all 10 personalities have died. 2.) Ginny was the sixth one to be killed. This means that she has key #5 with her - remember that we are counting the killings in descending order. However, it was not shown anywhere in the movie how Ginny was killed by Timmy. So, it can also be said that aside from Timmy (who was seen walking away from the car explosion), Ginny (whose body was never found after the explosion) also remained alive. Ginny's state is inconclusive.
No she does die. At the end of the movie they show her being suffocated by Timmy.
Nope, that's Timmy's mother that's being suffocated.
No. Timmy suffocated his mother in the bed.
That was his mother, not Ginny.
Answer: Since Timmy is the killer here, it would be correct to assume that he blew up the car and took Ginny away during the commotion and killed her in some way that isn't shown in film. Or else blowing up of the car becomes completely pointless and a classic like this won't show a scene that doesn't have a significance. So blowing up the car was actually a part of the plot to kill Ginny.
Question: Throughout all the movies, there are a few times when people are shown using magic without a wand, so what is the point of taking away someone's wand (Hagrid) or casting the "Expelliarmus" spell?
Answer: Only the most skilled wizards (as well as some basic instinctive magic) can do magic without a wand. A wand is also necessary for a number of different spells. Notice how even Voldemort always uses both a wand and the incantation when casting the Killing Curse.
Question: How could the conspirators possibly imagine that their plot would work? Their confidence that none of over 400 passengers might happen at some point to fix on Kyle and her daughter, perhaps even have a whole conversation with them, either at the gate or on the plane, seems unwarranted. They had to have been awfully sure that no one would notice them boarding at the call for passengers with small children. They had to assume that once the plane had leveled off that the girl wouldn't spend half an hour traipsing tirelessly up and down the aisle dragging her bear along and saying hi to everyone. And then there's the coffin. When Kyle did open the coffin, it made no sense that she did! So how in the blazing sun would the plotters have expected that she would do that at some point?
Answer: They most likely would have had contingency plans in place. For example, if the conspirators saw someone talking to Kyle, they'd interrupt to distract that person. Or initiate their plan earlier if the daughter started getting noticed. Of course, since the script didn't call for any of these contingency plans, we can only speculate. And they basically manipulated Kyle into opening the coffin.
Question: How could people sneak into the show? It's in a large dome, and I assume there's lots of security.
Chosen answer: A motivated individual can find a way. One could get hired as an extra, or as a crew member. And one could certainly simply elude security. The larger the operation, the easier it is to find holes in the system. We have certainly seen many instances of that in real life, in museums, theme parks, celebrity residences, national landmarks, etc. Why not in a fictional, dome-enclosed town?
Question: It is revealed at the start of the film that Vanessa was a Fembot the entire time. When Austin tells Basil Exposition this, he replies that they knew all along. If they knew all along, why didn't they tell him? Am I missing something here, or is it just a very poor excuse for Austin to become single again and act the way he does?
Chosen answer: It's just a random joke and an easy way for them to write out Elizabeth Hurley and bring in Heather Graham.
Question: Why did Spielberg make Temple of Doom a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark? I read somewhere that he didn't want to make the Nazis the villains again, but that wouldn't be a problem since the Nazis never went to India or China.
Answer: This is conjecture, but it seems the general function of setting Temple of Doom before Raiders of the Lost Ark is that it helps set audience expectations that the two movies are self-contained episodes. For instance, Karen Allen has said she wasn't disappointed about not being asked to return because she'd already been told that the next installment was being set in the past before her character is reunited with Indy. Conversely, since we're already aware Raiders makes no mention of the events of Temple of Doom, we know we shouldn't necessarily expect any further installments to continue directly from prior movies' storylines regardless if they are set forward in time.
Chosen answer: It was actually George Lucas who wrote the story, made it a prequel, and has stated it was because he didn't want the Nazis to be the villains again. The idea most likely seems if it wasn't a prequel, the Nazis could still be after Jones, even in China or India. But alas, there is really no other insight as to Lucas' prequel decision.
Question: Near the end of the movie, what did Will mean by his comment "the way I see it the blacksmith will receive two pairs of boots instead of one, so be it", or something like that. Can someone please explain what that comment means?
Answer: During executions, the executioner would recieve the belongings of the executed. In this case it was the blacksmith.
Question: Obi-Wan Kenobi has a lightsaber in Star Wars, and he is killed by Darth Vader. Luke does NOT pick up Obi-Wan's lightsaber, but escapes on the Falcon. In the Empire Strikes Back, Luke has a light saber, which he uses to escape from the Wampa. We know that Luke did not make his own lightsaber until Return of the Jedi (a green one). Question: Where did Luke get the lightsaber that he uses in Empire Strikes Back?
Chosen answer: It's his father's lightsaber, which Obi-wan gives him at the beginning of the film.
Answer: It's Anakin's lightsaber, the one Obi-Wan gave to him at the beginning of the movie. After the duel in Revenge of the Sith Obi-Wan took it. You can tell it's the same saber by the hilt.
Question: Why does Christine choose Raoul instead of the Phantom?
Chosen answer: This is a very short, but very complex question about which dissertations are written. Here is my best attempt at a brief summary. Christine lives as a sheltered child-like woman in a highly patriarchal Victorian society. She is torn between two loves. There is Raoul, who represents safety, light, and a sort of romantic, adolescent view of what true love should mean. Then there is Erik, the Phantom, with whom Christine has had a long time bond. He has been to her like a guardian angel. He gave her music. He comforted her when her father died. And yet, as his role turns from that of protector and teacher to one of lustful suitor, he comes to represent darkness, passion, lust, obsession, and danger. He is unstable, driven to madness by a world of light he can never know. He is also, let's not forget, homicidal. Christine ultimately makes the only choice society makes available to her - the safe and sane choice. From the ending of the film, we learn that Christine remained wife to Raoul, but it is unclear how happily her life turned out. She probably always shared a connection to Erik, who possessed for her a depth of love she could never know from any other man. Andrew Lloyd Weber wrote a sequel to "The Phantom of the Opera" called "Love Never Dies." In it, we learn that the Phantom did, indeed, remain in Christine's life. I won't provide spoilers here, but more information about "Love Never Dies" can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Never_Dies_ (musical).
The Phantom was controlling and abusive. Christine's love for him was based on pity and deception. The Phantom had planned to kill her right after marriage and blow up the entire opera house. When she offered him compassion and devotion, it was her bargaining for Raoul. Yes, Christine had a strong, complicated relationship with Erik, but they were not I love. When Erik realises this, he unites Raoul and begs forgiveness for his misdeeds.
The Phantom murdered, yes, but don't forget where he spent most of his life-it is said that he kills in/for love. And let's not even mention Love Never Dies, it's a whole mess.
Answer: I believe some things stated are true, like Raou being thesafe choice the Phantom being the dark forbidden suitor. While the things I don't agree are the statements of the Phantom grooming her and kidnapping her. She always was willing to go. While yes he decieved her by saying he was her angel of music, he partly was. He gave her the chance to sing by coaching her. Did he do it from day one because he wanted to marry her? Who knows. I think she truly loved the Phantom but chosen Raoul out of safety. She would have had to live life on the run with the Phantom. The Phantom also told her to go.
Answer: First of all, Eric pretended to be a guardian angel sent from her dead father to teach her to sing. He continued this gaslighting throughout the movie / play, outright stating several times that he was her Angel of Music. Raul on the other hand, was her dear childhood friend, who represented memories with her father. Eric brought her down into his home under the pretense of having her sing for his music, then suddenly turned his tone into a romantic one and showed her and lifelike mannequin he made of her - that's incredibly creepy. At every point where things don't go his way, Eric throws a tantrum and ruins things for everyone in the Opera House. By the end of the show, Christine is terrified of him and is begging Raul to protect and hide her from Eric. We are led to believe that this is a love triangle, but this is an incel man forcing love on to an unsuspecting woman, and when she chooses another man he acts out in his typical fashion, putting them both in danger. It would be hard to love someone like that for anyone.
Question: The movie was released in 2004 and Season 4 was released in 2005. In the movie, SpongeBob is the manager of The Krusty Krab 2 and Plankton got the formula but went to jail. So then how come from Season 4 onwards there's only one Krusty Krab, SpongeBob's still just a fry cook in the original Krusty Krab and Plankton's free and is still trying to get the formula?
Chosen answer: The movie is not in continuity with the series.
Question: Where is the bathroom in Michael's loft? I have seen every season, every angle, and I never see anything resembling it?
Chosen answer: It might not actually have one, in which case, he'd have to go down into the club and use theirs. As for showering, going to his mother's house or a gym membership would take care of that.
Question: How does curb stomping someone kill them? It will obviously destroy their teeth, but it doesn't look very fatal.
Answer: The stomp is to the neck. It breaks the neck and causes death.
Chosen answer: "Curb stomping" is a form of assault in which a victim's mouth is forcefully placed on a curb after which the head stomped from behind. Depending on the force of the stomping, the practice may, indeed, cause severe injuries and sometimes death. Any time you have a person's head being crushed between a hard, immovable object and an object moving with force, it is not unreasonable to posit that death can result - either immediately from the trauma, or later due to internal injury and bleeding.
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: The level of evidence needed for a court of law is much higher than an author requires.