Question: At the end of the episode, Dicky's parents are called and informed that the government has killed him? Why did they do this?
Answered 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.
Answer: It's the opposite - not smart but dumb. The voice said he failed to get a perfect score, less than one hundred percent.
Quote: "We regret to inform you that your son's intelligence quotient has EXCEEDED the government standard, according to section blah blah blah of the New Code." As in the original short story, they were eliminating intelligent people.
Where can I find the short story?
It's in the compilation "100 Great Science Fiction Short Stories" edited by Isaac Asimov.
It's by Henry Slesar and a quick Google search will show you some online copies. It's only two pages.
According to Wikipedia, it was first published in the February 1958 issue of Playboy magazine; it may have been reprinted elsewhere since then.
Question: When Wanda uses her powers on Tony, he sees his friends lying dead on the ground. Later, Tony says that what he saw was something that was actually going to happen? Why would Tony believe that the deaths of the other Avengers is something that would actually come true? Wanda was very good at messing with his mind so, she could have made him believe that their deaths would occur.
Answer: What Wanda did was to amplify Tony's existing anxiety about failing to protect his friends and the world. He was probably already having dreams and thoughts to that effect before encountering Wanda - when she used her powers on him, the resulting vision was so vivid, but in keeping with his previous fears, that Tony was convinced it was an actual premonition of the future.
Question: Is the food fight scene completely imaginary, or are the Lost Boys actually able to will food into existence by imagining it? I always thought it was the latter growing up and we as the audience didn't see it until Peter, as the audience's proxy, saw it for himself, but any YouTube videos I watch about this movie all seem to think all the food was just in everyone's collective imaginations.
Answer: Neverland very much runs on "If you believe, it will happen" which is what Tink means during the meal when she says "If you don't imagine yourself as Peter Pan you won't be Peter Pan." So by the rules of Neverland, as soon as Peter believed it was real it was then real. The dinner was trying to teach him to believe as, in Neverland, if you don't believe it then it won't happen.
Question: I read that, according to Margot Kidder, when working on this movie, Christopher Reeve and Sidney J. Furie didn't get along at all. Is this true? If it is true, then what was the reason behind their feud in the first place?
Question: Many times Hogan and company manage to actually escape Stalag 13, especially at night. If they can escape so easily, then why doesn't everybody in the whole Stalag do it and head to an American Embassy?
Answer: The core POWs regularly escaped and returned to the prison camp because they made it their mission to conduct espionage and commit sabotage in the surrounding German territory. They also collaborated with different underground resistance groups and used a network of secret tunnels to help prisoners from other POW camps to escape, who then relayed vital information back to the Allied forces. Hogan and his men maintained the illusion that Stalag 13 had never had any prisoners escape in order to avoid their covert operations being shut down. Being that the prison camp is set in Germany during WWII, there were no American embassies.
Hogan has mentioned to different characters that they are actually stationed at Stalag 13 to help allied soldiers and prisoners from other Stalags to escape Germany.
Question: I know that during the filming Richard Dreyfuss and Robert Shaw often argued. What caused them to dislike each other so much?
Answer: Agree with the other answer but would add that while the entire cast thought Robert Shaw was a charming and pleasant man, his chronic alcoholism caused problems and tensions on the set. I remember a TV interview with Richard Dreyfuss saying he once lost his patience with Shaw during the production, strongly telling him to just stop drinking after Shaw commiserated about his problem. That may have been the source of the feud rumor.
Answer: Simply put, they didn't; rumors of a feud between them got blown out of proportion over the years. Richard Dreyfuss himself said that he and Shaw got on famously throughout the shoot, and that there was one altercation between them that was an isolated incident. "It's not true, and where that started I don't know, but trust me, Robert Shaw wouldn't countenance that idea of a feud, forget it." You can read the interview with Dreyfuss from 2019 here: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity-interviews/jaws-legend-richard-dreyfuss-reveals-17325959.
Question: Why didn't Scar just kill Simba himself right after Mufasa died?
Answer: That would have been a little too suspicious, if both Simba and Mufasa died in the same stampede and Scar, who's made no secret of his desire to rule, declared himself king. It helped him solidify his claim to have Simba go into exile, seemingly renouncing his own right to Mufasa's throne, clearing the way for Scar, as Mufasa's brother, to take it for himself. Making Simba the scapegoat for Mufasa's death didn't hurt, either.
Answer: It would look too suspicious.
Answer: Scar didn't tell them Simba killed his father and went into exile. He blamed the stampede for both deaths. Hence, when Simba returns Scar brings up Simba's role in Mufasa's death.
Question: In which episode did Sheldon criticize Falcon of the Avengers?
Answer: The Decision Reverberation.
Question: In the first film, society was still functioning; there was still law enforcement and a criminal justice system, there were still hospitals, businesses and a news media. However, in this film there is no law and order at all, it's all chaos and kill-or-be-killed. What happened in between films?
Answer: There was a war over oil which included nuclear warfare and the complete loss of civilization. People ended up like the biker gangs, loners like Max or the Refinery people who were trying to get to the presumably safe northern areas of Australia. In the narration the old man tells the whole story.
Answer: In the opening scene, the narrator explains about the fall of civilization with clips of war and social collapse.
Question: When Matt Damon and his girlfriend are talking about erectile dysfunction from the night before, she is eating a banana. Is this a deliberate easter egg Martin Scorsese threw in? (00:50:50)
Question: At the end of the movie, what is Valeria Golino doing to Dana Carvey's door, and why is she dressed like Humphrey Bogart?
Answer: Regarding the doggie door, all she was doing was moving the frame of the door to the right (the hole was still in the same spot). That way when Baby aimed for the "door", he'd run through the actual opening, since he kept missing everything to the left. And she wasn't really dressed as Bogart, she was just wearing Pogue's jacket and hat that was in his apartment. He was just being silly calling her Bogart when she asked "remember me?" Earlier in the movie, he was watching "The Maltese Falcon", which starred Bogart, so it's just a reference/joke to that.
Answer: "Baby" would always miss the door going by the left barely missing it. She put the fake to the right, which means it would look to the left and see the real door. She dressed up to show that she loves him. Most couples when they are dating sometimes wear a piece of clothing like a hat, shoes or dress style similar to their partners.
Thanks guys for all the answers.
Answer: It was for "Baby" the dog, who kept missing the door. She had depth perception because of only having one good eye. She was dressed like Bogie for Dana Carvey. He was a private eye.
What did she do to the door that would alleviate that problem though? And I know Dana Carvey is a private dick in the movie, but Valeria Golino isn't, so why did she feel the need to dress like one?
You're right. I just watched it a few more times, and she did manipulate the door in such a way that the dog could now get in without running into the door. But my question about her wardrobe still remains unanswered, why is she dressed like Humphrey Bogart?
Question: What two items were on Mr. Liotta's resume that should have been excluded?
Answer: Mr. Liotta's resume should have excluded her skills, favorite movie, and that she hates bees.
Question: Would Eddie have actually been able to become a cop? In earlier episodes, he is drunk and has even got in trouble with the law several times, which resulted in him being arrested.
Answer: Having an arrest on your record will not disqualify you. Only a conviction will count against you because in the United States, you are considered innocent until proven guilty. And even then most police forces will only consider felony convictions or specific misdemeanors such as theft as disqualifiers.
Question: Did Tia Carrere use a body double for her nude scenes, such as getting into the hot tub and getting frisky with Dolph? You didn't actually see her face in those scenes.
Answer: It was a body double. She was a young and inexperienced actress who was uncomfortable doing nude scenes. However, she did pose for Playboy many years later and said, "She felt comfortable being nude."
Question: Why can't Leonard's mother act like an actual mother? Why did she treat him like a test subject?
Answer: Because she is not the mother-type. She is a very emotionally detached person. She probably got children for the prospect of them being successful and interesting to her work. Not because she likes raising them or take care of them.
Question: Why is Tom Clancy credited as an executive producer on this show considering he passed away 5 years before the show went into production?
Answer: As he is the author who created the Jack Ryan character that was adapted into a successful movie franchise, he could be credited as an executive producer for any TV or movie projects both before and after he died. It was announced in 2015 that the series would be produced for Amazon. Clancy died in late 2013, and he probably was involved in the series' earliest stages or discussions just prior to his death, and therefore would be credited posthumously. The title of TV or movie "executive producer" is fairly broad and can include one or more function, including securing financing, production oversight, creative input, script consultation, story concept, and more. Clancy's estate would likely continue to be involved under his name following his passing and receive profits and royalties.
While his estate would receive the profits, it's not automatic that Clancy would receive credit as a executive producer just because he wrote the novels. Authors like Michael Crichton, Douglas Adams haven't been credited as an executive producer after their death for use of their characters and works. Clancy's estate must be involved in the production in some way and rather than credit the estate, they credit the man.
Most likely his estate would be involved, through surviving family members, lawyers, etc. to act on his behalf in his name. No one said it was "automatic." It would have been a contract arrangement made while he was alive and that would continue posthumously. Whatever Michael Crichton or Douglas Adams did was a different arrangement for whatever reason they chose.
Nothing in your answer suggested anything about a contract arrangement (which if true would be the reason). You implied it was automatic. You said "as the author...he would be credited...for any...projects", but that simply is not true.
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 live in a totalitarian state where people who are deemed too smart (and therefore a threat to the authorities) are done away with. That's the point of the test, to eliminate potential troublemakers.
Brian Katcher