Question: Why does Jamie calling him uncle stop him? That and why honor her request to see his face?
TedStixon
20th Aug 2020
Halloween 5 (1989)
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.
20th Aug 2020
Halloween 4 (1988)
Question: Why does Michael want to kill his niece?
Answer: Thank you.
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).
Answer: Because he's a psychopath. And purely and simply evil.
20th Aug 2020
Fantastic Four (2005)
Question: Is there a scene where Reid turns into a hose to dose Doom?
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).
20th Aug 2020
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: How is Rogers alive at the end? Shouldn't he have died of old age?
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.
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.
22nd Jul 2020
XXX (2002)
14th Aug 2020
Predator 2 (1990)
Question: What was a Predator doing in L.A.? Why not stick with the jungle?
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.
Note: Cities are sometimes compared to jungles. So for the predator there is hardly a difference.
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: 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)
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.
4th Aug 2020
Enter the Dragon (1973)
3rd Aug 2020
Meet the Fockers (2004)
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.
11th Jul 2020
The Sopranos (1999)
Question: What was with that series finale ending scene? Did Tony die or not? Did they do this to be open for interpretation?
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.
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?
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).
11th Jul 2020
X-Men 3 (2006)
Question: After Mystique's "cured" and talks to the Feds what do they do with her?
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.
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.
12th Jun 2020
Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)
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?
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.
12th Jun 2020
Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)
8th Jun 2020
A Quiet Place (2018)
Question: Who is running the power plants so that they can turn the lights on? I work at a power plant and it is not quiet.
Answer: If you look closely at the background in one scene, you can see solar panels attached to the roof of the home, providing them with energy. Additionally, the original script also mentioned that the family also used generators that were located underground so the noise would be muffled, though I don't believe it's mentioned in the film itself.
29th May 2020
Halloween 5 (1989)
Question: Up to this point in the series (and even in the next film), Michael is portrayed as a remorseless killer with no emotions. However, in this one, he takes his mask off at Jamie's request and even sheds a tear. He becomes enraged when Jamie tries to touch him, reverting back to the remorseless personality. What was the point of this sudden, and brief, display of emotion?
Answer: 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. Othenin-Girard felt that this made Michael more frightening, because his evil was so great that even if he still had regular emotions that occasionally emerged, the evil inside of him would eventually take over. But it does kind of come out of nowhere and contradict the other films... hence this idea was more-or-less ignored in future sequels.
11th May 2006
Scream (1996)
Question: Why did Billy and Stu want to kill Tatum? I've read that she said Stu was bad in bed, but when does she say this in the movie?
Answer: They didn't have anything against Tatum specifically, her death was just necessary for their scary movie plan against Sidney. They also said that anyone who isn't a virgin dies in a scary movie, and we know Tatum wasn't a virgin.
Did they say "anyone who isn't a virgin"? I thought it was anyone who has sex *during* the horror movie events - not including people who were *already* not virgins.
Typically, the cliche is "sex or promiscuity = death." I don't think it necessarily has to be during the events of the movie. Debating the minutiae is probably just gonna make us run in circles.
Answer: I don't understand why people are getting hung up on the virgin thing. Sure, there are some movies where someone who isn't a virgin survives. But the common cliche in horror that everyone knows is that sex typically equals death. Doesn't matter if some movies don't follow the cliche... it's still the cliche, and Stu and Billy are operating by the cliches.
In addition to this, Stu and Billy were planning to be the two survivors and make "the sequel." They probably viewed themselves as the main characters. Tatum was one of the "side characters" who would typically be killed.
Except even in this movie, Sidney should be dead by that logic. While Randy is explaining that rule, Sid is upstairs breaking said rule with Billy.
Answer: But Amy Steel's Ginny in Friday the 13th Part 2 wasn't a virgin and she survived. Yet these guys claim to know horror movies.
It's just a TV trope used in the movie.
28th Apr 2020
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
Question: Couldn't Nigel have attempted to return the jewel himself instead of sending Dr. Bravestone and his associates to do it?
Answer: Nigel, being an NPC, doesn't have the skills necessary to get to the shrine. He knows the group does, and that's why he sends them.
Answer: No, he couldn't. As the other answer indicated, Nigel is not a person, he's a character created by Jumanji, and his entire purpose in the world of Jumanji is simply to deliver instructions to the players and welcome them into the world. It would undermine the entire game for him to try to return the jewel himself.
It would be pretty pointless to send Dr. Bravestone and his associates to return the jewel, if Nigel attempted to the jewel himself.
Answer: Nigel might actually be being selfish "Van Pelt will kill anyone who has the jewel, so instead of sacrificing myself, since it's my fault he found it, I'll give it to you guys and put you in danger. Cheerio."
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: Sorry about that and thank you.
Rob245