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?
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: 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.
Question: Anthony's first communion - I can see why it might be seen as a big deal, but enough to warrant such a grandiose celebration? Do other wealthy Italian families have such elaborate ceremonies for such occasions?
Answer: First communions, especially in countries/cultures that are deeply Catholic (like Sicilians), often come with big parties; the wealthier the family, the bigger the party. There's no reason why a family as wealthy and powerful as the Corleones couldn't throw an elaborate party, for whatever reason they want, if the mood strikes them. It's also a "front" of sorts; similar to Connie's wedding in the first film, the Don (Michael) invites people he wants to have meetings with (his capos, politicians he has bought/wants to buy/needs to speak to), so his son's first communion is as good a cover as any.
Question: Is there any reason James Remar was hired to play two different unrelated characters?
Answer: I think the only reasonable explanation is because he's done it before... crappy answer but it's the only answer I could find online.
Harry's Fifteen Minutes - S8-E22
Question: How was Harry able to fake being sick? When his temperature was taken, the thermometer read one hundred and three. Even his sneezing and weak voice sounded real.
Answer: He swapped his thermometer with one hidden in his sofa, which he'd rigged somehow. And he faked his sneezing and weak voice the same way actor Harry Anderson did: acting.
Question: Why did no-one stand up for Jamie as she is walking down the aisle of her wedding?
Question: I'm sure I missed it but, why did Mary Jane turn down Peter's proposal?
Answer: Because he was letting his career as Spider-man become more important than her. They way he milked the crowd and kissed Gwen the same way she kissed him, from the first movie, when the city honoured him.
Answer: In Spider-Man 2, Harry Osborne discovered Peter Parker's secret identity. He was waiting for the right opportunity to use that information. When he saw how much in love Peter and Mary Jane were, that's when he threatened to expose him to the world, if she didn't break up with him.
Not that scene. It's the scene where Bruce Campbell has his cameo as the maitre'd and Mary Jane was angry at Peter.
Question: Why are they using so many candles/gas lamps when they have electricity, esp in the Monopoly scene?
Answer: Electricity would be a precious commodity, to be saved for essential purposes/emergencies. Why waste it when you have candles/gas lamps, which are far less resource-intensive?
Question: Why did the dad sacrifice himself when all he had to do was toss a hard object at a metal object to distract the monster?
Answer: Because there's no guarantee that would work...the creatures don't just go insane for any sound they hear. They've already discovered there are humans (or at least, something they can kill/eat) within the truck, so just hearing some random noise might not be enough. Instead, he makes it clear to them that he is a human and vulnerable, so they switch their attention to him, knowing that they can get him with less work than it would take to rip the truck apart.
Question: How did they climb the grain silo without making noise? Why did the silo door come off its hinges?
Question: How can Natalie and Michelle get only probation for causing someone's death?
Answer: They would have been charged with vehicular manslaughter, not even a felony in some jurisdictions. If it was a first offense and/or they lied about what happened, probation wouldn't be off the mark.
Question: When Marty arrives back in the alternate 1985, he's attacked by a black man when he unknowingly breaks into what he thought to be his home. Could this man be former mayor Goldie Wilson?
Answer: No, it's a different character and a different actor. Goldie Wilson is played by Donald Fullilove. The dad with the bat who chases Marty out of the house is played by Al White.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it's two different characters; George McFly, for example, was portrayed by both Crispin Glover using archived footage from the first film and Jeffrey Weissman in newly filmed footage. While the character played by Al White is credited simply as "Dad", there's no confirmation either way whether this was an alternate version of Goldie Wilson.
The answer is correct, the Dad is not meant to be Goldie Wilson. In the novelization of the film, he's given the name "Lewis." And while some characters were recast, Donald Fullilove (the actor that played Goldie) himself already appears in "Back to the Future Part II", so it's not like they recast him.
Unless there's any indication it's the same charector, or at least a clue to point in that direction, then there's no reason at all to assume it "might" be.
While there was no clear-cut answer on whether this was Goldie, I think it is safe to assume it is not him. This franchise has shown to make recurring characters very noticeable, even minor ones, such as the homeless man that Marty recognizes in 2 different timelines. Yes, sometimes actors get recast, as they did with George McFly and Jennifer Parker, but they made it quite clear they were playing the same character. I see absolutely nothing that would even suggest this was Goldie Wilson.
Jeffrey Weissman is credited as "George McFly", Crispin Glover is credited as "George McFly (archive footage) ", Donald Fullilove is uncredited but listed as "Goldie Wilson II" (on imdb). Al White being credited as "Dad" actually confirms to a T that he is not "Goldie Wilson" and nothing in that scene even remotely suggests that the family father portrayed by Al White might be Goldie Wilson from 1985-A (other than a viewer seeing a person of color and drawing conclusions). There also is no cause to question whether or not the "Dad" was supposed to be any other person of color seen in any of the 1985 timelines. (Not that another POC in that timeline would come to mind).
Glover is not credited the same way as Fullilove is since he's credited only as "archive footage" and Fullilove is uncredited. Glover doesn't physically appear in part 2 as Fullilove did.
I stand corrected and have edited my post. Thank you.
Answer: Also, the 1985 Goldie Wilson's picture was shown on a moving vehicle in part 1, and he looked very different from the father with the bat in part 2.
Answer: It could not be Goldie Wilson. In 1955, Goldie Wilson looks to be around in his early 20s in the cafe. This would put him to be early 50s in 1985. The father only looks to be in his 30s.
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: 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.
Bishop73