Question: When Harry is packing his trunk at the end and Dumbledore is talking to him about setting the curtains on fire, does anyone know what is written on the inside of the lid of Harry's trunk?
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 looks like information for Harry's trunk in case it was ever found by someone. Probably had his phone number and address inside of it.
You wouldn't put that information on the inside.
You would if you didn't want to display your personal information everywhere but also expected that if your trunk was lost, the finder would open it to see whose it was. Yes it is more practical to have an ID tag or similar in modern luggage but the Harry Potter stories are deliberately written as quaint and old fashioned.
You don't open luggage you find. Name of the owner is always on the outside.
Sure you would. Presumably, it's very difficult to lose a trunk that big, given the modes of transport that Harry uses. Info on the inside would be a last resort.
Question: Just some questions about Charlie and Principal Newman: 1. So, just to double-check, Charlie defaces the school and gets into trouble because Principal Newman hates Christmas? 2. How does Charlie get over Principal Newman being his stepmom and do they get along in the end? 3. If the graffiti Charlie is trying to get rid of doesn't come off, how does he get it done or does he still have to do it after Principal Newman becomes Mrs. Claus? 4. In the end, is Charlie still on the naughty list?
Answer: 1. Yes. Charlie gets into trouble for defacing school property - his way of protesting Principal Newman's anti-Christmas policies. 2. That question was not addressed but it can be presumed Charlie accepted it and got over it. 3. Charlie tells his dad the graffiti won't come off, but he was just complaining how difficult the paint removal was. It can be surmised the paint was eventually removed (with difficulty and a lot of elbow grease). Yes, he still has to do it after Principal Newman becomes Mrs. Claus, as his dad would not allow the extreme vandalism Charlie did to slide. 4. Most likely Charlie was removed from the Naughty List because he repented, did a good deed by sacrificing a tooth to summon the Tooth Fairy to bring Principal Newman to the North Pole and was also cleaning up his vandalism against school property. After Christmas Day, he started with a clean slate and a new chance to be good for the next year.
Question: Why does Masters torch some of his paintings? Is it a psychological compulsion? Do they not meet his standards?
Answer: Masters is a gifted, talented (yet eccentric), artist who captures his mood and feelings of the moment and puts them down in the form of paintings. He does need to sell them, if at all, as he makes enough money from his lucrative counterfeiting operation. He did not need or want those paintings anymore, because they represented past moods or feelings, so he burned them, which is part of his eccentricity.
Question: Was "Dakota" really the secret word the money carrying horses trained to stop for?
Answer: In the movie, yes, it was. Historically, nobody knows as different teams of horses were most likely trained to respond to different code words. The code word "Dakota" was just an example the movie used to illustrate that code words were used for stagecoach deliveries, especially when the coaches were transporting high-value cargo.
Answer: It's unlikely that code words were used like that in real life; horses don't understand "words", just sounds. Expecting a team of panicking runaway horses to respond to a separate code word that means stop, when their regular voice command for stop ("ho" or "whoa") is ineffective just doesn't make sense.
They weren't panicked runaway horses, as stated in the film, they were money carriers trained not to stop no matter what. Regular voice commands weren't effective because they weren't trained to obey them. The code word was the voice command. And horses can, in fact, be trained to respond to specific words, so it is entirely likely.
Question: How did Chester Copperpot expect to find the treasure without the map with its clues?
Answer: He was a professional treasure hunter who'd probably done years of research. He was on the right track, after all.
Question: Since it takes two people (usually the captain and first officer) to arm and disarm the self-destruct sequence what would happen if one were killed and couldn't concur to disarm? I am supposing it would go to the next ranking officer but if they are the only ones on the ship (like in "11001001") what would happen then?
Answer: If one or both commanding officers were incapacitated in some way and unable to disarm the self-destruct, then presumably the ship would explode and they would be killed. That is the inherent risk in such a system. However, being as its a TV series, there is always some technical loophole that saves the ship.
Krusty Towers/Mrs. Puff, You're Fired - S4-E9
Question: Could what happened to the Krusty Towers at the end happen to a hotel/apartment in real life?
Answer: It probably won't happen to a real hotel if it is built correctly.
Question: What is the last song from the end credits - the orchestral song during the concept artwork, not the "Problem (The Monster Remix)" song?
Answer: The last song I believe you're referring to was composed by Mark Mothersbaugh. However, there are no official names for the scores he composed. It would just be something like "End Credit Suite."
Answer: I a monster.
Question: This follows on from the continuity mistake about Sister Ruth wearing makeup. Sister Ruth has been a nun, living under religious vows for many years. After the nuns start their mission in the Himalayas she becomes infatuated with English expatriate, Mr. Dean. Eventually she puts on a fashionable dress, assumes an attractive hairstyle, and even applies lipstick (at the time it was somewhat controversial for any woman to wear lipstick). She then tries to seduce Mr. Dean. Could a woman who has lived a life of religious self denial change into a convincingly steaming seductress?
Answer: There's no way of knowing. For the purpose of the movie's plot and to heighten the drama and underlying sensual passion, the Sister Ruth character was probably portrayed as being more sexually savvy than a lapsed nun normally would be. She may also have dated a lot as a teenager, watched many romantic movies, or read romance novels before becoming a nun. Also, not all nuns are sexually inexperienced before joining the church. Some enter when they're older, have previously been engaged, married, and so on.
Question: During one scene in 1955, Marty mentions John F. Kennedy, and nobody has any idea who he's talking about. Would Kennedy really have been a totally unfamiliar name to most Americans in 1955? True, he wasn't President yet, but he was a popular Democratic senator from a prominent family.
Answer: He was both a war hero and a senator, but unless Lorraine's father followed politics closely he might not have recognized the name, especially since Kennedy wasn't a senator for their state.
Plus it would be unheard of to name a street after a living politician from across the country.
Answer: Keep in mind, there was no TV news in that house (they just got a TV). And I don't see the dad being one to read any further than the sports page, or listen to anything but comedy on the radio.
Question: When Kirill shoots Bourne from the bridge, he only fires once. Why doesn't he empty his gun and finish him? He has enough time before he the police arrive.
Answer: Bourne is a significant distance away from the bridge, and nearly round the corner by the time Kirill takes aim and fires. He was lucky to hit Bourne at all from that distance and angle, and with rapid fire from a handgun it would be almost impossible to get a subsequent hit, and Bourne would have ducked out of sight almost instantly. Also the police show up only five seconds after his shot, so he didn't have a lot of time.
These guys are professional killers/assassins. It's hard for me to believe that he couldn't get a deadeye shot there. But unless I missed something, it's the only explanation that can be made I guess.
Bourne and his fellow Treadstone agents were expert killers and assassins, there is no indication that Kirill, seemingly a regular FSB officer, possessed similar skills to that level - we don't see him fight, drive particularly well, and the long-distance sniper shot he takes in Goa hits the wrong person (Maree).
Question: What did Obi-Wan mean when he said to Luke "then the Emperor has already won"?
Answer: Luke was the only chance to get Vader back to the light side. Only together they could defeat the Emperor and bring balance back to the force. If Luke couldn't confront his father, then the Emperor would kill him. Then he would have won.
Question: Did Palpatine somehow use the dark side to create the visions Anakin had of Padme dying in Palpatine's own mind and then transfer them to Anakin's?
Answer: No the idea is given Anakin had the premonitions himself, part of his strong connection to the force. Anakin entrusted Palpatine with this information and he took advantage of it to corrupt Anakin. If Palpatine created these vision he must have known Padme was not only pregnant but going to do die at childbirth, which isn't possible for him to know.
Question: If Count Dooku took over with ordering the clone army for Dyas, did he ask for the clones to have the biochip that would turn against the Jedi? If so, why wouldn't the Kaminoians inform Obi-Wan of this?
Answer: Order 66 was an extra implaced by Dooku later on to the clone army. It was a secret order and the Kaminoans are very loyal to the customers. The fact Obi-Wan came there to inspect the army doesn't mean they should reveal the secret order, they had no reason to do so as they thought Obi-Wan already knew.
Question: This gets described as a reboot rather than a sequel, but why? Nothing directly contradicts the original, as far as I'm aware, the only real change is the title character being recast - hardly unusual for a franchise.
Chosen answer: I haven't seen this movie in several years, but one contradiction I distinctly remember is the Punisher having a deceased daughter in this film, whereas in the 2004 film, he only had a son. The 2004 film had the Punisher's wife and son (named Will here) murdered in Puerto Rico and buried and Tampa. This film takes place in New York, and the cemetery the Punisher goes to has a gravestone for his wife, daughter and son (named Frank, Jr. here). There is also a brief flashback in this scene of the Punisher sitting on a picnic blanket with his dead family around him, which is closer to the comics origin where his family were collateral damage in a gang crossfire. The 2004 film depicted his family as being the deliberate targets of a mob hit and were run over by a truck on a pier.
Question: Why didn't they make a composite drawing of the suspect?
Answer: Leigh Allen. Mike Mageau was the only one who had seen him and was still alive. He recognised him at the end of the movie.
This is what I read online: "In 1991, Mike Mageau identified Arthur Leigh Allen as being the shooter. This identification was the result of Mageau being shown a photo lineup by George Bawart of the Vallejo Police Department. When Bawart asked Mageau why he had never identified Allen in the 20 years Allen had been the top suspect, Mageau said that he had never been shown any pictures of suspects and he had only been asked if he recognized certain names. If Mageau's statement is true, it's probably the biggest law-enforcement blunder of modern times." This would suggest that the police also never made a composite sketch based on Mageau's testimony.
Answer: Which suspect are you referring to? Several men were suspected of being the Zodiac Killer. The film even cast different actors for different scenes to account for the discrepancies in individual eyewitness accounts. Additionally, this film is based on the real-life case files as well as Robert Graysmith's book, and there does exist a composite sketch of the Zodiac Killer (you can Google it). So if there is a certain suspect whose sketch isn't shown, it could be either that it wasn't shown in the film or it doesn't exist in real life.
Question: Can someone please explain what the difference is that they're talking about at the end of chapter twenty three?
Answer: They're talking about the difference between free will and fate - choosing for yourself vs. being forced to do something. Harry feels trapped by the prophecy, because he thinks it means he is obligated to fight Voldemort to the death, whether he chooses to or not. Dumbledore explains that this is not the case: while it's true that ultimately, one of them will end up killing the other, it doesn't have to be that way: Harry has a choice. It's just that, because Voldemort killed his parents and threatens everything he cares about, Harry will never be satisfied till he has destroyed Voldemort; and because Voldemort thinks Harry is a threat to him, he will never be satisfied till Harry is dead. The difference, then, is that Harry will be choosing this fate, rather than being dragged into it with no say in the matter: he has control of his own choices and his own life, and that makes "all the difference in the world."
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: It's hard to say what was written on the inside of the trunk. Sometimes they write the company that made the trunk so it might have had the manufacturer's name inside of it and maybe even the year that it was made as well. It seems like everyone at the school has very similar trunks so it may have his name written inside of it so as not to confuse it with anyone else's.