Question: Have the filmmakers offered any explanation as to why they used CGI for Wolverine's claws in the bathroom scene? As has been pointed out numerous times, the CGI is very poor. Given that the previous three X-Men films used practical claws that looked just fine, this seemed like a very impractical thing to do, especially considering the extra time and money going with CGI would require.
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: When Harry, Ron and Hermione arrive at the Lovegood house, why do they all sigh Luna's name?
Answer: Luna has an odd, quirky personality and does not interact well with people or view life as others normally do. Harry, knowing what it's like being an outcast, likes her, but she tries his patience. Ron does not particularly like her, and both he and Hermione generally avoided her at Hogwarts, even though she was a member of Dumbledore's Army. Harry, Ron, and Hermione know they need help from Luna's father. He, too, is rather eccentric, and the three are just preparing themselves for what the coming interaction is going to be like.
Question: I'm having troubles reconciling few things. In no particular order, here are my questions: a) The shotgun scene didn't make any sense. I guess the "surprise" is that it fires when you release not when you pull it, but it just seems like one of those things where you duck and tell the other guy to duck and then unscrew it while ducking. b) So, John is given one last bullet and asked if he'd like to kill one more time. So, lets say Amanda actually does what she's told and doesn't kill Lynn. Isn't John going to kill her anyway since that was his intent? c) Likewise, how would Lynn have not told John about her collar? You'd think that it'd be the first thing she'd mention to him or you'd think it'd be something he might want to ask about. This, of course, then becomes a bigger deal because if he knows he can't kill Jigsaw without killing his wife, then he probably doesn't and everything has a happy ending. To me, it would've been cool if she had no way to tell him but was trying really hard to and he just ignored her and killed him anyway. d) Was it considered Amanda's choice then to have timers so short to make things "unwinnable"? The characters seemed to basically "win" every time but just couldn't within the time allotted. Presuming that is the case, how could an obsessive guy like Jigsaw not see and evaluate everything? How could he not be the ones watching videos of everything? I get that it was a test for Amanda, but since he objected to "murder" so much, then how could he knowingly allow her to murder?
Answer: A) The judge was preoccupied with Timothy's predicament and Jeff was preoccupied with the rifle, so he may not have noticed the judge was in the line of fire. B) Jeff didn't know Lynn was also being held captive until he witnessed Amanda shoot her. Him shooting Amanda in retaliation was a knee-jerk reaction. Had he walked into the room and seen Lynn alive and well, it may have caused him to let his guard down long enough for Jigsaw to explain everything. Then again, like you said, he just may have killed Amanda anyway. C) Lynn actually was trying to tell Jeff about her predicament, but she could barely speak after being shot and bleeding out, plus Jeff was mainly focused on Jigsaw. D) Jigsaw was extremely ill and weak at this point. He probably didn't have much oversight on Amanda's work. In all likelihood, he learned about her transgressions from Hoffman.
Question: When Obadiah Price's son talks to J about how he was "there" and you'll tell him all about it what did he mean?
Answer: J asked why he remembers K when no one else does and Price says J remembers K because J was in 1969. One of the things with time travel is that effect can precede cause, meaning J was in 1969 before J travelled to 1969. Then Price says he wants J to tell him all about it when he gets back to the present.
Possibly but when talking time travel, theories expound endlessly. Your explanation generally fits the events, or how they're authored to occur, but it's almost too simplistic. I believe that it is impossible for effect to precede cause... At least not without a break. To me, for time travel to exist and be possible, it would require endless loops or time-lines. Essentially that the moment you go back in time and make any change, which could be almost impossible not to, you break the original timeline thus creating a new one. Only then, could effect precede cause imho. It's the butterfly 'effect' :) or the ripples in the pond theory. Even then, I'm not sure that effect could ever precede causation. Your thoughts?
I purposely kept the answer simple since most movies with time travel don't go into much details about how time travel is possible and all the consequences, etc., especially in comedies. Plus there tend to be plot holes left when only partially explained. There was a saying I heard in passing in regards to writing science-fiction (so I don't know who said it or the exact quote), "it's better to have unexplained science than faulty science." One example of effect preceding cause is "tachyons", a hypothetical particle that travels faster than light. As such, a tachyon fired from point A to point B would reach point B before it was fired, due to special relativity. I personally don't subscribe to this theory and say if it was to occur, the tachyon would simple arrive before a particle of light would. I don't believe time travel into the past is possible, so as long as a movie is consistent, I don't think there's anything wrong with picking a closed time loop over an alternate time loop.
Question: When Malankov is lying at the stairs and Bryan aims a gun at him, Bryan said "You killed my ex-wife. But you're not gonna kill my daughter." and then Malankov said "Your daughter?" then he muttered something. What exactly did he say?
Answer: He says "S***! We are f***** by the same man."
I'm asking about what he exactly said before saying "We are f*** by the same man." And he definitely didn't say "S-h-i-t"
He was using the Russian "сука."
I know he used a Russian word, but he definitely didn't sound like he said "sсука." Somebody please tell me the exact Russian word he said.
Question: Why did the Tsarnaev brothers have Dun Meng go with them when they take his car? Why didn't they just take it and leave Dun Meng behind?
Question: When they promote the fight, why do they say January 1st is America's birthday?
Answer: They mean the entire year, 1976, is America's birth "day," being the bicentennial of the Declaration of Independence. So the fight, taking place on January 1, is the "first sporting event on our two hundredth birthday."
Question: How come Drake only gets a D- on a test when the score is 87%? Shouldn't that be an A?
Answer: First, an 87% on a test would be a "B." But Drake says that test bumps his overall class grade to a 66, which is the "D-" they're talking about (before the test Drake was failing, so his overall grade was a 59 or lower). Although a "D-"is typically a 60-62 and a 66 would be just a plain "D."
Question: Does Bill know that Elle poisoned Pei Mai? Pei Mai was Bill's master, and I highly doubt he would have approved of him being murdered in such a disrespectful way, but Elle was still on good terms with Bill which is evident from their phone conversation.
Answer: Since the film itself does not answer this question, any answer would be speculation at best. It is highly unlikely that Elle would tell Bill about it-she also murdered his brother, and lied about that, too-and since she was the only witness, he couldn't have heard it from anyone else.
Question: After the Reliant ambushes the Enterprise, Kirk tricks Khan and hammers the Reliant into retreat. As Kirk turns to assess damage to the Enterprise, Scotty inexplicably appears on the bridge, carrying the charred body of Midshipman Peter Preston. Why on earth would Scotty bring the dying Preston to the bridge, rather than to SickBay with all the other injured? He had to deliberately bypass SickBay just to make an unnecessary appearance on the bridge.
Answer: At the time of the attack, most of Scotty's crew were attempting to flee a coolant leak caused by the damage. Cadet Preston (Scotty's nephew) remained at his post in the confusion, and was the reason the Enterprise was able to maintain minimal power with the energizers knocked out. Although he was wounded from the assault while rescuing another crew member, the coolant leak is what led to his ultimate demise, as the coolant was highly toxic. When Scotty brought him to the Bridge, he was himself quite disorientated from the events and was also devastated by his nephew's condition. Agreed it makes little to no sense, but Scotty didn't know what he was doing. His nephew was going to die, regardless of where he took him to. Going to sickbay would not have prevented it at this point. It seems like it was used as a mood breaker for the scene, crews celebrating their escape from death only to be confronted by it again in another form.
Answer: I believe Preston was already dead at that point. An earlier scene was edited out of the film that explained Preston was Scotty's nephew (his sister's son), and which may account for Scotty's rather odd reaction of first bringing him to the bridge.
Yet Preston is shown alive (still dying) in the SickBay moments later. Preston shares last words with Captain Kirk before he actually dies. So, this is a case of bad editing?
What was edited out of the film was an earlier explanation that Preston was Scotty's nephew-this was way before the Enterprise was attacked.
These scenes, which include several of Preston's lines which were cut, were restored in the 2002 Director's Edition. Curiously, when the film is aired on TV they still run the original video cut which has the scenes removed. The editing is really sloppy with the scenes cut out and the scenes establishing that Preston is Scotty's nephew add another emotional layer to the film. It makes Scotty's actions make so much more sense, he's overcome with grief over his nephew and anger at Khan. With the scenes cut what Scotty does makes very little sense.
In the novelization, I believe it is explained that the ship is badly damaged enough that Scotty reached the bridge while attempting to get to sickbay because the computer glitched.
Question: Why is Beverly accused by the whole town of being promiscuous?
Answer: Kids are vicious and make up rumors about eachother. Given she obviously has some hangups and acts awkwardly around others due to her sexually abusive father, rumors simply spun out of control and it became popular for bullies to claim they had fooled around with her.
But it's not just the kids who have accused her. Adults like Eddie's mother have also slut-shamed Beverly.
Once the rumors got out, lots of people spread them despite not knowing anything about her.
They probably overheard the kids saying it and thought it was true what they said about her. Then they probably spread it throughout their friends/family.
There's also another factor: IT's malign influence. While it's unusual for a whole small town to spread such vicious rumors of a 13-year old kid, IT influences the townsfolk, amplifying their resentment, hostility, bitterness, jealousy, and other negative emotions. Derry is IT's feeding ground, and its mental presence permeates all levels of town. A select few, like the Losers Club, are able to resist it.
Question: Why didn't the aunts just tell Miguel that Ernesto De La Cruz wasn't his grandfather when Miguel was rambling about it when he entered the Land of the Dead?
Answer: The aunts may not actually know. Because his ancestor hated him so much, she may have talked about him very little in both the real world and the afterlife.
Answer: Because Miguel didn't unambiguously talk about his wrong assumption. In other words, he never said, "my grand-grandfather and Imelda's husband, Ernesto de la Cruz" (which is wrong). He only called him grand-grandfather and Imelda simply referred to him as a good-for-nothing musician. The aunts, uncles and the grandfather Julio all knew about Hector, as can be inferred from the reunion scene.
Question: When Iris is driving to Amanda's house from the airport, they are driving southeast along the shore. But LAX is east of Santa Monica, which is where the cab turns to head inland. Am I the only person thinking this is wrong?
Answer: This is typical in many movies where a commute to a specific location is deliberately inaccurate. I live in Seattle and have seen movies that were filmed here showing someone driving to a real location in a direction that in no way would get them there. There are logistical considerations in filming, such as what locations are more scenic, physical barriers for film crews, obtaining permits, traffic considerations, and so on.
Question: How did the church catch on fire? I know that in the scene before, Johnny drops a cigarette but he and Pony were also there the entire night. There is no way the blaze would have started once they left all them hours later. Also, what purpose did the children have being there? Why would they take a school bus to an old run down church? I get if they were going to just look but the adults let the children inside even though it was falling apart.
Answer: We don't know when the fire started, or even that it was Pony and Johnny who were responsible. But they knew that their cigarettes were the most likely explanation and so saw rescuing the kids as their responsibility. I recall the school being near the church for a picnic or something - the kids were explicitly told to stay away from the actual building. They were disobeying their teacher's orders by venturing inside.
Answer: In the novel, it's stated that the children were there for a school picnic, and that there was a possibility of them dropping a lit cigarette (which could have happened another time off screen in the movie).
Mr. Monk and the Genius - S7-E2
Question: When Stottlemeyer is informed of Linda's death, why did he throw his coffee mug out the window?
Answer: Stottlemeyer was already upset after the phone call. He was trying to get "Kevin" (who would have to be a judge, but no further character information is given) to issue a restraining order with no evidence of needing one, except that Adrian Monk said she needs one. Kevin said he would need to "sleep on it." So it's clear they've been trying to provide protection and unable to get the results they need, which seems to be based on no one trusting Monk the way Stottlemeyer does. He's just angry that they failed to protect Linda despite all their work. Although it does feel like a scene was cut, or altered, from the show that shows the futile attempts to protect Linda which built up to his outrage.
Answer: While walking upstairs in the victims house randy starts messing with his out of place tennis shoes. When he gets upstairs to monks he has on other shoes. Could have to do with the expensive rug.
Question: Even though both Eggs and Winnie jumped into the manhole to slide into the Boxtrolls' lair, why was only Winnie shown sliding down it?
Question: When Remy is stuck in a cage, chef Gusteau tells Remy he never did. Remy never did what?
Answer: Remy tells the imaginary Gusteau that he's given up, and Gusteau replies that Remy is only as free as he imagines himself to be. Remy counters that he's "sick of pretending" to be a rat for his father and to be a human through Linguini. He then adds that he even pretends Gusteau actually exists, just so he can have somebody to talk to, and that all of Gusteau's responses are what he himself already knows to be true. So when Remy asks, "Why do I need to pretend?" that's when Gusteau tells him, "But you don't Remy. You never did." Which basically means Remy is both a rat, and an extraordinary cook.
Question: How would the United States charge Lokar for his crimes even if he was exposed? He's not an American citizen.
Answer: He would be charged as an International War Criminal. Bosnian war criminals were charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, a body of the United Nations.
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.
Chosen answer: While it's not a definitive answer, the practical claws were still dangerous and several stunt people, and Hugh Jackman himself, have been injured during filming of the X-Men films. I don't know if they simply wanted to try to be safer or if there was a request made. Plus, the other films still used CGI claws for certain scenes, so perhaps they thought they could pull it off. It should be noted that Hugh Jackman went back to practical claws during filming of The Wolverine.
Bishop73