Question: When Kirk and McCoy try to rescue Chekov at Mercy Hospital, Kirk removes the 20th Century medical team into an adjacent room and uses his phaser to instantly fuse the metal door lock. The medical team cannot directly see Kirk do this, as they are visibly several feet away on the other side of the door. It's also safe to say that the medical team has never seen a phaser and can't comprehend its function or capabilities. As Kirk turns away from the door to rejoin McCoy, the trapped medical team only then rushes up to the door, and the trauma surgeon exclaims, "He melted the lock!" However, it seems that you'd have to laboriously dismantle the doorknob to determine that the lock's internal components were fused. So, how did a 20th Century surgeon deduce at a glance that Kirk had somehow melted the lock?
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: The doctors were watching through the window the entire time. There was a visible red laser beam from the phaser, culminating with a puff of smoke or vapor emanating from the knob. It wouldn't be a huge leap for anyone to surmise that the knob had likely been melted.
Try watching the scene. No doctors are looking through the window when Kirk phasers the door lock.
Answer: Or perhaps the part of lock on the doctors' side is visibility melted.
Answer: The knob would have been super-heated by the phaser blast. Enough that it could be felt without touching, and he simply could have come to the conclusion that a metal object that hot would likely have its internal components melted without a systematic analysis of the doorknob. He's also a surgeon and needs his hands. He wouldn't last long at the job if he was someone who went around putting his hand on glowing-hot doorknobs.
He could've also been guessing as it appears he tries opening the door. Why they don't break the glass is beyond me, but that's a character mistake, and not up for debate here.
Question: Why does everyone think Street turned in Gamble? Wouldn't he be back actually working SWAT instead of being stuck in the gun cage?
Answer: The SWAT Captain originally kicked Street and Gamble off the team and out of the SWAT Division completely for disobeying orders resulting in a hostage being shot. The SWAT Lieutenant convinced the Captain to keep the two officers in the division on a probationary basis to work back towards getting back on the team. Gamble was insulted by the probationary assignment and later resigned. The Captain offered Street the chance for immediate reinstatement to the team if he placed all blame on Gamble. When Street chose the probationary assignment over blaming Gamble or resigning alongside Gamble, everyone assumed Street cut some type of deal to remain in the SWAT Division without knowing the whole story.
Question: Why do those charms disappear at the end? Does Ren use the force to destroy them?
Answer: Luke took them from the Millennium Falcon and gave them to Leia. He wasn't actually there, and was instead a force-projection. When he died and his projection disappeared, so did the illusion of the dice that he had brought with him.
Luke disappears well before the charm. Also, the charm had a physical presence (I.E. you could pick them up) whereas Luke did not.
Luke didn't disappear "well before" the charm. The scene of his death plays out first for the audience but his disappearance and the disappearance of the dice were supposed to be concurrent. It's also not entirely true that Luke didn't have a physical presence. He holds Leia's head and kisses her physically. Presumably he could choose what was physical and what was not and chose to not have a physical presence when he dueled Kylo Ren. This is further evidenced throughout the film when Kylo Ren's hand gets wet from the rain after "force Skyping" with Rey and later on when the two are able to physically touch.
Question: What happened to the kid who was fishing at the end who the guy Harry was after took hostage? I don't think Harry shot through him, but I didn't see him when the camera pans out for the credits, is he dead?
Answer: If you watch closely, you see the killer throw him to the side and then take aim at Harry, at which point Harry shoots him. Since we don't see the kid again, we can assume he ran away as soon as the killer let him go.
Not true. Actually, Harry sees the boy, and appears to be lowering his weapon, and then blasts Scorpio... and when the bullet hits him, he is still holding the boy hostage... It is only after Harry shoots him, and he falls to the ground, that we see the boy running away.
Question: How does Wade have a photo of Francis for his board, if he doesn't know how to find him?
Answer: Because it's much easier to find a photo of someone than it is to find the actual person. Law enforcement agencies very often have photographs of wanted criminals on file, even if they're still at large. In addition, it's a pretty common movie trope for a hitman to be given (or otherwise acquire) a picture of his target, then be told to find him/her (which may or may not be based in reality...more likely, it's just a film cheat to give the audience a visual reference and help them follow along).
Question: How did Harry know where Doc Ock was later located, when Peter asks him for instructions on how to find him and save MJ?
Answer: Unless there is is a deleted scene to shed light on the issue, then it's not really addressed in the movie. It's possible that Doc Ock and Harry had a second meeting that took place off-screen in which Ock revealed to Harry where his hideout was, but as there's nothing really to go on, it's anyone's guess and it's reasonable to consider it a plot hole.
Question: Was the fairy godmother the one who cast the ogre spell on Fiona?
Answer: In the first movie Fiona says that it was a witch that cast the spell on her when she was a little girl.
That witch could have been the fairy godmother disguised as a witch.
Fairy godmother is a witch too.
Answer: Possibly. It's confirmed the fairy godmother locked her in that tower, and her son Prince Charming was supposed to go there and kiss her so she would not transform into an ogre anymore. However the curse worked in reverse and the fairy godmother told Fiona she was still cursed because she was still an ogre. But it is never stated she put the curse on her.
Answer: My theory is that the fairy godmother turned Fiona into an ogre for her son, Prince Charming, to marry her later on to become king. Harold was a frog when he fell in love with Lillian, so he asked the fairy godmother to turn him into a human. In return, the fairy godmother asked for Fiona to be locked up in a tower and await Prince Charming. It was a "favor for a favor" scenario. It is not sure who cast the spell on her, witch or fairy godmother, but the fairy godmother was the one to lock her away in a tower.
So, Fiona would've been born before Harold ever married Lillian?
No, it was an exchange "I give you access to the love of your life, you give me your firstborn daughter's hand in marriage to my son" kind of deal.
Question: If Voldemort wants Dumbledore dead, then why didn't he just kill him, instead of giving the mission to Draco?
Answer: It's a little complicated. Voldemort never intended that Draco would succeed in his mission to kill Dumbledore. He wanted Dumbledore dead, but it was also his plan to punish Lucius Malfoy for his failure to retrieve the prophecy at the Ministry of Magic (in Order of the Phoenix). Any follower who failed the Dark Lord suffered severe consequences, often fatal. Voldemort intended to execute Draco when he failed to kill Dumbledore. His purpose was to devastate Lucius by taking his son's life.
Question: Why is Voldemort afraid of Dumbledore?
Answer: Voldemort knew Dumbledore was not only an extremely powerful wizard with loyal allies, but that he had no fear of the Dark Lord. Dumbledore knew Voldemort better than anyone else, his strengths and his weaknesses, having known him since he was the young Tom Riddle. Dumbledore could always predict what Voldemort's intentions were.
Question: Was Hobb Cain's son? If not, who was he to Cain?
Answer: They're not related. Hob was just a skilled fighter and leader and Cain essentially made Hob his apprentice in the Nuke Cult.
Question: Since the board fired Norman in the last movie, how come Harry became the new owner after he died?
Answer: Despite being removed as CEO, Norman would still own the stock, which would then be passed on to Harry.
Did Harry have to take over or was it his decision?
It's always a choice to become CEO of a company.
Answer: Well Harry did want to keep his father's "Honor" and quoting from the first film, "become half of what he is." He didn't want to disappoint his father even after death. Or has a bigger goal in mind. But he did it on his own.
Question: Since this movie is a prequel to the events of the first Amityville, why isn't the name DeFeo used since the murders were committed by Ron Defeo Jr.
Answer: It is unknown why the changes were made, only theories as to why. There has been speculation that because they film took so many liberties and based some of the events (like the incest) on rumors rather than proven facts, that the names were changed to avoid trouble. There's also the fact that the films becoming increasingly fictionalized with each installment, hence they might have changed the names to indicate that the film was only loosely inspired by true events. Finally, there has been some fan speculation that the movie is actually a sequel, and we're merely seeing the DeFeo crimes being recreated in another family, though this is a bit shaky.
Question: How exactly were Dracula's servants successful in stopping Van Helsing in 1897? What did the monster hunters do wrong?
Answer: The girl finished the incantation and opened Limbo but it only took some of the hunters, the girl and Van Helsing; it didn't take Dracula so it was a failure of a mission.
Answer: They caused enough chaos and terror in the hunters that the girl couldn't focus on reading the incantation. Van Helsing was desperately trying to get her to hurry up and finish but she just couldn't get it done in time with everything going on around her. Apparently Van Helsing's group was not prepared for the undead bursting from the ground and frightening everyone.
Question: Did Erik know that Zuri was his Uncle James before Zuri told him he was the one responsible for his death?
Question: I have never been to Scottsdale. Why do the Goth kids consider it to be a miserable place?
Answer: Scottsdale is a well-liked destination for fun; resorts and spas, outdoor activities like hiking and rock climbing, golfing, cultural events, and a bouncy nightlife. It's generally considered an upbeat and convivial place, exactly the sort of environment the gloomy Goth kids would consider to be awful.
Question: Who is Vivian's friend that's always hanging out with her? I don't think her name is ever mentioned in the film.
Answer: I don't recall her name mentioned in the film either, but after a look on IMDB, I believe the actress is Samantha Lemole, who is credited in the movie as 'Claire'.
Question: After George/Jahangir arrives in his Pakistani house, he's giving gifts to everyone after the evening meal. He hands Tanweer something to which he responds "what was the need for this?" What on earth is that...?
Answer: It's a seat stick, basically a single-leg folding seat that doubles as a walking stick. When it's folded up, the handles are used for support like a regular walking stick, and when unfolded the thick strap becomes a rudimentary chair. They often have a prong on the bottom beneath the rubber foot, so they can be driven into the ground for extra stability. They are often used by the elderly who may need to sit down suddenly from tiredness, or by event spectators who get tired of standing (such as golf enthusiasts, a game of golf can last a while, and these seat sticks provide some relief.) Tanweer responds with 'there is no need for this', and he most likely means that it's not necessary for George to give away his belongings as gifts to the family.
Question: When the Chinook is shot down the pilot pulls a lever and it seems to activate an explosive and detach the forward section. Is this a real life procedure on Chinooks?
Answer: No it doesn't detach anything it was the explosion that blew the chinook into two parts.
Question: In the movie the Ethiopian official is killed with a bullet that had been previously fired through Swaggart's sniper rifle, wrapped in paper to protect the rifling marks, then re-fired through another gun. Where did they get the bullet? The only round fired through the gun is the one Swaggart fired at the soup can. No way they could have found that bullet in the mountainous terrain. A needle in a haystack would have been easier. Even if they did find the bullet it would have been too deformed to be accurate at any distance let alone the extreme distance in question. Why not just use Swaggart's gun to make the shot, or at least produce a pristine round without deformation? Of course then they would have found it lacked a firing pin. What if they had replaced the firing pin and made the shot? Could you imagine Swaggart's embarrassment when he pulled the trigger on Michael Pena to demonstrate the lack of a firing pin? And the expression on Pena's face. Priceless.
Answer: After Swaggart left his home, NO bullets could have been fired from his rifle (altered firing pin). What might have been done is to have fired the killing shot with paper-patching so it couldn't be matched to ANY rifle and then just "claimed" it matched Swaggart's barrel.
Answer: Why would you assume that the only bullet fired from the gun is the one at the soup can?
Because he attests that this is the only bullet fired from this gun in the AG's office.
Answer: Another way that works is to have rammed (by rod) a bullet down the barrel of Swaggart's rifle and then used that bullet (with the paper-patching) to load a cartridge used in the assassination. THAT would have Swaggart's barrel markings on it.
Question: The dress Claire is wearing when Doug goes back to rescue her is not the same dress she is wearing at the autopsy. I don't understand this. Also when the terrorist calls Claire about her car, the truck he was using for the bomb had not yet been shot by Minudi. So he called her before he knew he would need her Bronco?
Answer: The second part of your question: the bad guy needed a truck. He called Claire but they can't deal. SO he bought another truck. That truck shot by the policeman. Because he don't have enough time he must call Claire again to buy her truck.
Answer: When Doug went back previously, he managed to save Claire and took her home. However he left her there instead of taking her with him to the ferry. The bomber would have suspected Claire had survived the explosion at the cabin and would have gone back to Claire's house in case she showed up there. Doug would have left her there thinking she would be safe. But after he left the bomber would show up, discover she had survived and killed her the exact way he was originally planning to. Only this time she would be killed in her dress. When Doug went back for the last time, he remembered seeing Claire at the morgue in her dress and knew then that she would only survive if he took her with him to the ferry, which he does. That one act is what saves everyone in the end because Claire ends up distracting the bomber long enough for Doug to kill him. That decision to take her with him finally closes the loop. Mission accomplished.
Nice answer. But then why is Claire's body ever discovered with a red dress and her fingers cut off? There is a weak argument that the first time Doug goes back he happens to make the trip a few seconds too late. Even then, with cut off fingers, you'd drop her off at the hospital, not at home, thus she wouldn't be killed and dumped in the river.
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 lock, and the area around it, would have become hot as a result of melting the lock. The hospital staff would then jump to the conclusion that the lock was melted. The real reason they mention it, however, is so the audience knows what he did to the lock.
But you would think, if the doorknob was still searing hot two seconds after being fused, that the first thing out of the surgeon's mouth would be a scream of pain, rather than "He melted the lock!"
Charles Austin Miller