Question: Should the bank clerk have told Dale how much money Bill actually had in his account? Aren't they only supposed to inform you that the person does not have enough funds to pay the check?
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: In Raiders of the Lost Ark, the scene when Indy tells Marion to close her eyes, does anyone remember in the original release that the spirits looked directly into their faces to see if they were looking? Since I saw that, I haven't seen it in any version of the film. Does anyone know where this part can be seen, or why it hasn't been included in the various versions? (02:07:59)
Answer: I've seen that scene myself, but the versions I've seen have been on basic cable networks, with commercials, and they've included that scene. Sometimes they edit scenes for running time.
Partners in Danger Chapter 9: The Haunting of Mary Jane - S4-E9
Question: How could Miranda getting scarred in an accident, as this appears to be the case, cause her to need become a cyborg as it appears to be in the episode?
Answer: I don't think the intent is for her to be a cyborg. Since she suffered a facial disfiguration and had no access to medical treatment or reconstructive surgery, the mask on her face probably serves to hide her scars. Plus, since she's the episode's villain, it helps to make her look more menacing.
Question: This is supposed to take place roughly around the episode Charizard Chills Out (either before or after). Tracey meets Professor Oak, but in episode "The Underground Round-up" he says "I can't wait to get to Pallet Town either Ash, to meet Professor Oak" like the movie never actually took place. Also, Ash could have given Professor Oak the GS ball at that time. When really does the movie take place? As Ash still has his Lapras, which he releases in the previous episode.
Question: How come Hilts could not answer the German at the end of the movie when he said he could speak German to Colonel von Luger?
Answer: He could have only known a small amount of German, enough to answer a question or two, but not enough to carry on a full conversation. Also, the German seemed to be wanting to have a full conversation with him. He was on the run and didn't have time to talk. He was most likely being a smart ass saying he knew German.
Answer: .And, just to add to the previous answer: even if he could speak conversational German, he would likely do so with a very strong American accent (as he does when he speaks the few words to the Commandant earlier), so the guard would have picked up on that right away, anyway.
Question: Can somebody please explain to me HOW on earth Bond disengages the bungee cord wrapped around him after jumping off the dam without it flying back up the dam? Or could he have just secured it to something to stop it doing this very thing? I know it is possible that all this happens off-camera.
Answer: There's no indication or implication that the cord didn't bounce back up once Bond disengaged it from the loop on his ankle. As he reaches the bottom he fires a grappling hook into the concrete to stop himself from bouncing back up, then presumably would have disconnected the cord (which would have bounced up) and he would have dropped down to the concrete structure.
Question: In one scene, McLane turns on an electric saw to distract the terrorists. When he's having no luck finding shoes that fit, why didn't he just use the saw to cut the toes off a pair of shoes?
Answer: There's no answer, though it would have been dangerous for McClane to go back and use a noisy saw. The dead guy's cohorts might be around and/or are looking for him and could hear the noise. McClane also had to move quickly to get the body into the elevator and down to the party floor, so he could gain info about the other terrorists. The shoes may also have been too tight and narrow as well as too short, making them unusable.
Question: Why was John Ruth treating Daisy Domergue so violently? I mean he was beating her up quite frequently.
Answer: He has a bad temper and despises criminals.
Question: Spoilers! The woman who Yelena kills at the start isn't seen hugely, but bears a passing resemblance to Olga Kurylenko, who's in the opening credits but isn't actually seen until nearly the end of the film. Does anyone know if this was a deliberate choice to misdirect more casting-savvy viewers as to the part she actually plays, or am I misremembering, and the woman at the start doesn't look much like her at all?
Chosen answer: Are you talking about the woman who has the mind control antidote that ends up freeing Yelena from the Red Room's control? She's a rogue ex-Widow named Oksana played by martial artist and stunt coordinator Michelle Lee.
That's her. It's only a semi-resemblance, but was close enough that I basically assumed if that was Olga Kurylenko she'd had her role cut down, or was a cameo, or might appear in flashbacks. Either way I didn't spend the film thinking "when's Olga Kurylenko showing up?", and anyone asking that of themselves presumably might figure out who was playing Taskmaster before the big reveal. I might just be overthinking it of course. :-).
I actually thought it might have been Olga Kurylenko at first as well.
Question: Was the post-credits sequence changed at all, given the film's delay? Without giving specifics away, this was intended to be the first appearance of a certain character, but due to changed release dates that character first appeared in one of the Marvel TV shows instead. Presumably the character featured would have had slightly more of an introduction in this film if they hadn't already been in the TV show?
Answer: I can't attest to if the end credit scene was altered, but I can say that it's been Marvel's M.O. to introduce new characters to foreshadow upcoming projects without really giving them much of an introduction. For example, Fury, Thanos, Captain Marvel, the Wasp. It seems this credit scene was meant to tease the audience for her upcoming appearance in the TV show rather than build on who they've already established her to be.
Question: What happens to the real Derek bond, his old friend? He is not seen at the party at the end or even seen again after the hostage.
Answer: Presumably he went back to his home and practice. Gary seemed to like Derek much more anyway.
Question: At the end, General Ross' convoy is nearly to Natasha, intent on arresting her...then we cut to two weeks later, and she's about to embark on a prison breakout. Are we just meant to assume she escaped...somehow? Fought off everyone who was in those about 20 SUVs? Ran for it and somehow got away?
Chosen answer: It was done intentionally that way by the director to be left up to the viewer's imagination. Cate Shortland said "that was intentional, because we wanted to leave the question of how she would get away, rather than allow the audience to get exhausted by another fight." Of course, it's also possible that future films or TV shows will discuss/show her escape. Perhaps she negotiated her way out with information on the Red Dust.
I don't see why she didn't just leave with everyone else. There was no reason for her to stand there and wait. She could have flown off, as well. The convoy was cars, not planes.
Natasha activated her tracker which led Ross to her. The plan was to have Ross and his men arrest Dreykov, but basically things went sideways. Natasha stayed behind to hold Ross and his men off from pursuing the Widows. Presumably, had she left with them, Ross would still be able to track her and everyone would be in danger of being captured.
Until it is explained by one of those future shows, it really can be thought of as a plot hole. The interview, after the quoted bit, goes like this; "We wanted to leave you guys on a high with the question of how did she use her ingenuity? Because she did. And it was probably, I would say, she bargained her way out of that situation. But I don't know." So...the director says she does not know how the hell did she -really - escape that situation, just that she must have done something clever. Hilarious.
Leaving the how unanswered isn't a plot hole, even if writers or directors don't know the how. At best, it's an unexplained Deus ex machina. A plot hole is something that contradicts what's been established for the sake of the plot, but here, nothing was established.
I wouldn't say it's a DEM. Wikipedia; "Deus ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly and abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence."There is no occurrence here. Nothing that we (nor the director.) know of intervened between the two scenes.On the other hand,"Plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot." Natasha's situation is established and then ignored.
Which is why I said it was "unknown." An unknown occurrence happened that resolved the situation that wasn't illogical. However, I wouldn't correct you if you submitted a plot hole mistake, but others might since something not being explained isn't a plot hole.
Yes, sorry, I was splitting hairs as usual; I don't think a DEM can be "unexplained" in the sense of "unknown" because its whole point is that it is the narrative device that gives the story its twist; as absurd as it is (like a literal God appearing out of nowhere fixing things), it must be "something." Here there's nothing; we only have a statement of the director, movie-wise it's not even particularly implied that the resolution was peaceful, since Nat simply says she'll hold them off.
Question: If the Predator challenged Dutch to a fair hand-to-hand fight, why didn't the Predator dispose of his wrist-blades? It seems slightly unfair, seeing as Dutch at that point has no weapons on him. And it's not as if the Predator isn't proficient fighting barehanded, seeing as he disposed of his weaponry before fighting Dutch.
Answer: The Predator removed his laser and combat weaponry. No gadgets or gizmos, the blades are the most original and primitive weapons a warrior can use.
Question: Do the predators eat meat? And if they don't eat meat then what do they eat in place of meat?
Answer: Notice there are no fish, amphibians, reptiles, or birds among the species seen in the film. Disney says that predators eat those but avoid eating other mammals.
Question: How do the alien creatures orientate? They're blind but sensitive to noises, so I guess it is supposed to be some kind of echolocation - but first, echolocation is not a way of "seeing" your environments constantly, especially not suitable for running like crazy in a forest full of trees and obstacles. Second, by using echolocation, they should be able to locate moving objects even it's noiseless. So how?
Question: What movie was Fat Stuff watching before getting killed?
Answer: It's an episode of The Cisco Kid. You can even faintly hear an announcer say the name when Fatso is standing in the doorway.
Question: I am missing something here. Hank won't give Dale any gas for his mower, because the mower won't start anyway. Then, when Dale shows his new mower to the guys, he says that he pushed the old one into a lake "three months ago." It doesn't seem like three months has passed between the scenes. So Dale either asked for gas when the old mower was gone anyway, or else he lied about pushing the old mower into a lake. Why?
Answer: I don't think that Dale actually pushed his old mower into a lake. He is feeling smug and proud about his new mower, so he acts like he doesn't care about old one. He might as well have pushed it into a lake, since he has the great new mower.
Question: Why did Michael spare Annie?
Answer: He knew she was Laurie's friend.
But he didn't spare Lynda, and she was also Laurie's friend.
Lynda was vulgar towards him in the beginning, and they also broke into what used to be his home to have sex. Honestly, not surprised he ended up killing her and her boyfriend (who are another representation of his sister and her boyfriend whom he killed).
Annie was either bait or he just had not finished yet.
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: At a bank where I worked, no, we were not supposed to reveal how much money a person did have in their account. But almost every workplace has employees who are new and/or careless, and they do things that they are not supposed to do.