Corrected entry: In the labs, the Beast is looking at colour LCD monitors, they weren't available in 1992.
lionhead
30th Aug 2019
Dark Phoenix (2019)
30th Aug 2019
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Corrected entry: Doc Ock robs a bank to get funds to rebuild his machine. He seems to take only three or four bank bags, which, given the size of the machine, doesn't seem like enough to buy all the parts to rebuild it.
Correction: Let's say it wasn't enough, perhaps because Spider-Man intervening prevented him from taking more. He could have robbed another bank or an armored truck offscreen. Showing that, however, would just drag the movie down. Since he has all the equipment he needs, we have to accept that he acquired enough money to pay for it all.
Correction: Just because it "doesn't seem" like enough doesn't make it a plot hole.
Yeah you don't really know what is inside and what seems to be inside are golden coins which are probably worth quite a lot more than bank notes would. There could even be jewellry inside.
22nd Sep 2017
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Question: Why didn't they just tell Cochrane about the Borg? Why didn't Cochrane want to be famous?
Answer: Telling him about the Borg would violate the Prime Directive by giving too much information about the future. The Borg were not supposed to be in that timeline, unlike the Vulcans who, historically, made First Contact with humans at that time. Cochrane does not say why he doesn't want to be famous. There are many reasons people shun celebrity-some are shy and prefer privacy, others don't want to deal with the pressure of having to live up to a reputation that may be inaccurate, it interferes with the work they are trying to achieve, and so on.
Actually, they did tell him about the Borg. You can tell they told him about the Borg because he said a group of cybernetic creatures from the future have traveled back through time to enslave the human race.
They told him a general story about what's going on. They don't reveal their name, where they are from or their nature.
What harm could telling Cochrane about the Borg possibly do?
That could potentially change the timeline too much. They want to preserve the timeline they came from.
I'd care more about saving humans from being killed, or enslaved, than about preserving timelines.
It might set humanity on the wrong path, that will lead to more deaths. For example, it could prevent the federation alliance. One can only imagine how the Alpha quadrant will survive Romulan, Klingon and Dominion attacks without the alliance.
"Telling him about the Borg would violate the prime directive by giving information about the future." Which is more important, obeying the prime directive, or stopping the Borg from enslaving the human race?
They are first attempting to give as little information as possible to anyone in the past in an attempt to follow the Temporal Prime Directive. Any small change could have larger changes in the future via the butterfly effect.
Answer: When Riker and Cochrane are doing the pre-flight check in the ship, Riker is talking about the historical significance of this launch. Cochrance tells him to shut up, he is tired of everyone he meets telling him what a hero he is, and what this launch means to mankind. He says, "You want why I want I'm doing this. Money and women. I want to buy an island and be served drinks by native girls. I hate space travel. I take trains." However, once the Vulcans land, he truly realises what he's done.
Answer: Cochrane wanted to be famous but in order to get money and women. Cochrane didn't want the hero title and was sick of hearing about all the good he had done.
23rd Aug 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Stupidity: Assuming that Stark had absolute faith in being able to bring Peter back (otherwise, not much point making a dead person his heir), he had an army of killer drones standing by in space, but he made no use of it during the dramatic battle against Thanos, when you'd expect he'd use every resource available.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Besides the fact it's a possibility these killer drones (or the satellite) were not yet ready when Thanos attacked, since Tony likes to have his new gadgets be build autonomously, I think it's safe to assume that during the time Thanos' spaceship was in the air the drones had little chance to impact the battlefield as that thing had excellent AA as proven when Captain Marvel came in from orbit. Once the spaceship was destroyed however I'd take it Tony was kinda busy with fighting Thanos and keeping him from the gauntlet to be thinking about any drones or any other protocol he had in space (I doubt he had only 1 satellite with weapons technology on board). Next to that I doubt the drones would have any use keeping Thanos away from the stones anyway, and them fighting the rest of Thanos' army was only second priority (and they were winning).
I actually agree (and upvote) the consideration that there's no hard evidence that the drones were fully operational before the event of Endgame, as I figure that the orbital facility should have some in-built technology to replace any drone lost. He can build new armors in minutes, drones should be assembled quite readily, so the 'big' part would have been designing the 'ship', but I won't get into speculations about the logistics involved, it'd be a wild tangent. I maintain that in this movie we're introduced to quasi-instantaneous anywhere-in-the-world tactical intervention capabilities Stark seemingly had, being presented as his heritage. You postulate that he could have even more space weaponry lurking around, and it wouldn't be out of place since this movie makes the reach of his technology appear truly global in a much different way than it was before, where we saw armors pieces fly from his Malibu garage or something. So, if he was too busy dealing with the messy fight on the ground to be bothered sending an order to the huge swarm of expendable decoys and hunter-seekers he (likely) had at the ready, well, he was surely under-utilizing them (hence the 'stupidity').
Perhaps I was a bit too generous when I said he had plenty of other weapon equipment in orbit. Ever since Iron Man 3 Tony hasn't been building a lot, nothing too elaborate anyway and after infinity war you gotta remember he has been living quietly and peacefully with his family the past 5 years without building anything probably. Even though he was pissed off they didn't build the shield around the earth he was just too tired and depressed to be the guardian, also believing I think that Thanos was right in some way and the dangers for Earth were over, so there was no need for The Avengers. Once he decides to help bring everyone back (and thus Peter) he must have ordered EDITH to build the satellite as a last bit of useful tech to leave his succesor in the case of his death. Last point I want to make which is a bit of a stretch but when Thanos' ship arrives it arrives high in the air and starts and attack on the ground. It's a good possibility the attack was directed at any threats in orbit as well.
Suggested correction: Using hundreds of weaponized drones in that battle would actually be an awful strategy, as the battlefield was so densely packed that almost any member of the Avengers or their sorcerer, Asgardian and Ravager allies could have been accidentally killed by one.
With the huge caveat that this entry is simply "stupidity" and not a legitimate plot hole because it involves a character decision, he could have used them to temporarily distract Thanos during their 3 on 1 battle, attack his ship, provide cover and tactical support during the chase for the gems and whatnot, his software is more than capable of providing valid targets.
8th Apr 2019
Shazam! (2019)
Question: What is the actual reason given why the police couldn't find Billy's mom? Just the fact his mom didn't want to find him and left doesn't mean the cops would stop looking. It's hard to imagine a 5 year old isn't able to tell the cops his address, where he goes to school or where he lives in general. Teachers, neighbours, his physician or dentist, classmates, all can tell where the mom is. Next to that isn't his dad in prison and thus easy to find?
Answer: He was a baby when he was abandoned - all he knew about his mother was her name, not her birth date or social security number. He didn't know anything about his father and his mother went back to her maiden name. In case you're wondering not everybody has their DNA taken.
He knew his full name. He's a legitimate son born in wedlock. They would have easily tracked down the father who is an inmate: that is on top of what the original poster mentioned, such as his home address or other minimal information. Lionhead, I believe this belongs in the Plot Holes section rather than simply the Questions section: I am not informed about Pennsylvania's laws for child abandonment, but I think it's rather unlikely that someone could just drop their kid in the middle of a crowd and get away with it entirely, especially when the kid knows his own full name.
I'm not too eager to put it in the plot holes section, because it is plausible I suppose that she disappeared willingly and they couldn't find her specifically. But you address the right point I was trying to make that the cops won't simply stop looking for his mother. It's a crime to abandon your child and they will look up and question a lot of people. And I mean a lot of people to find her. Even if there is literally no family besides mom and dad, the dad will be found since he is in prison. He won't be able to help much but contact will be maintained, even if he doesn't want it.
The thing is, they don't even have to question a lot of people since the kid is not a newborn left on the steps of a church or something: he was able to provide his own full name to the authorities. So it's absolutely straightforward for the police to see who his parents are - although it should be noted that he was born in a different state, I don't think it should be a particularly complicated research for the authorities.
10th Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Why didn't Hulk use the Infinity Gauntlet to snap Thanos and his army? He was able to snap everybody that Thanos killed and survived, so he would have survived another snap.
Answer: The gauntlet fell off after his first snap, then Thanos arrived from the past and destroyed the building, separating them. Hulk never got near the gauntlet and the stones during the ensuing battle, so he didn't have an opportunity to try a second snap to destroy Thanos.
Really what they should have done was pulled the stones off the gauntlet and separated them again, and not run around with a fully assembled and powered up Gauntlet for Thanos to grab.
I agree.
That would mean they had to touch them, and nobody besides Hulk, Thor and Carol could touch one without dying.
Ordinary humans can't just grab an infinity stone. Even when Thanos takes the power stone out of gauntlet you see it start to destroy them.
Only the Power Stone has been shown to kill normal people who try to hold it. Hawkeye literally held the Soul Stone in his hand in this movie.
Because he made the necessary sacrifice. Anyone else touching it, big problem. Could be an exception though. The power, reality and space gems have been proven to be untouchable and killing anyone who does (with exceptions though). Time gem is very carefully handled as well so I wouldn't touch that one either. Mind gem, who knows?
I don't recall the Time Stone killing anyone who touched it. The only example I can think of was the Red Skull presumably being killed when he handled the Tesseract, but was in actuality teleported to Vormir. The Reality Stone has a will of its own, so someone could feasibly handle it without harm. You're wonder about the Mind Stone is correct, as no human character was shown in any movie to have handled it directly. Overall though, I would say that I disagree with someone trying to remove a stone from the gauntlet, as one stone could easily be lost, and Thanos could still kill every hero at the battle even with one or more stones missing.
The reality stone attaches itself to anyone touching it like a parasite and slowly kills them. I'd say it's a bad idea to touch it. As for the time stone only the ancient one and Hulk actually touched it and there is reason Strange handles it carefully and without touching it. As for the Red skull, don't really know if he is really alive on Vormir. Who knows what the tesseract did to him?
Whether or not Red Skull is still alive is an interesting topic, but either way, I'd argue that while the Tesseract transported him, it itself is not what made him in his current state, but rather his curse to guard the Soul Stone and the planet of Vormir itself, as it is a dominion of death as Nebula stated.
3rd May 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Corrected entry: In the final battle Captain Marvel saves Spider-Man and gets the Gauntlet but she didn't use it. She probably has power enough to use the Gauntlet and save everyone, without sacrificing herself.
Correction: This is merely speculation. You don't know that she is powerful enough to survive and neither does she. The plan was to get the stones back where they belong. With the stones gone, they would have been able to fight off Thanos and his army. Keeping the stones around is a massive risk, and it has been shown in the comics that if you lack the willpower to use them correctly, it can have devastating effects on you and the area around you. It simply isn't worth the risk, especially with the less advanced Iron Gauntlet which was not made by the Dwarves.
Correction: But the plan was never to use the gauntlet again. They only wanted to bring everyone back. They didn't anticipate Thanos arriving. Not knowing someone could even use the gauntlet again the plan was made to keep Thanos away from it and beat him this time. Using it whilst not knowing if that person would survive would be too dangerous, Thanos could get to it. Tony improvised the last part where he decided to wear the gems and snap, as a last resort.
Another question would be, was Captain Marvel going to just fly into the time tunnel without a nanosuit or quantum tracker? It sure looked like it. And then Thanos, who is behind Captain Marvel, is able to throw his sword past her into the van to destroy the tunnel. If Carol has the power to fly into orbit, she can fly faster than a thrown object at ground level.
Thanos can throw a sword pretty fast I'd say, being strong enough to battle a god and easily overpower Hulk. But yes, She was going to fly into it to get the gauntlet and stones away from Thanos forever, that was the plan. However Carol is going to handle the situation of going through the tunnel without any plan is up to her, she is pretty powerful though and could find a way I'd say.
5th Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Corrected entry: One of the big sources of tension in the heist is the fact that they supposedly have a limited number of Pym particles, as stated by Scott Lang. So after the test run they only have enough for everyone to take one round trip through time. Cap and Tony use their return supply to go to 1970, which is why they needed to steal more particles to get back. However, Ant-Man's shrinking tech is also based on the Pym particles, and his shrinking suit seems to work without restriction in 2012. They also have enough to both shrink the Benetar in 2023 and re-grow it in 2014. So either Scott is mistaken about how many Pym particles he has, or he is lying about them. And before someone says they calculated the number of particles it would take for the shrinking during the mission before assigning them to the team members, Scott discusses the limited supply before they had any plan of what they were going to do in the past.
Correction: Shrinking for those more common actions would not eat up as many Pym particles as say, shrinking enough to go sub atomic, as well as controlling where you're going and doing time travel.
This was addressed in the post. Scott calculated all the Pym particles he had on hand and said there was enough for 1 round trip each and 2 tests. Not '1 round trip, 2 tests and an indeterminate amount of shrinking during the mission which we haven't planned yet.' Plus, he uses a whole vial in mistakenly shrinking before the test, after which he says there's enough for 1 test, not 2. So, maybe there are enough extra Pym particles to do some shrinking after they plan the mission, but this is never brought up and would seem to contradict what Scott has already said about it and what we see onscreen about how many Pym particles it takes just to shrink (though the shrinking tech has never really been consistently portrayed in any of the films featuring it). So, a justification for one perceived mistake just raises a question somewhere else. There's just something off about how the film conveys the circumstances of using the Pym particles, however it is parsed.
Thanos has access to technology centuries beyond Earth. It's definitely possible his crew of henchmen were able to replicate the particles.
To add to Quantom X's correction: Thanos' men reverse engineered the Pym particles to allow evil Nebula to return with the others and pull the ship through the timestream. Remember it can take as long as they want to reverse engineer it before sending evil Nebula back, nobody would notice. There were never any more particles used than what Scott had available. Either more were obtained (from Pym himself in 1970's), or more made (by Thanos' men). I agree with the original correction that the small size shrinking obviously doesn't use up as much particles as the subatomic shrinking does and that's why he could do it.
The shrinking tech for Scott and the shrinking tech for objects are two different things, remember he has those red and blue discs that shrink and grow things and he uses the vial in the suit.
2nd Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: If Captain America had to go back to return the infinity stones to balance the timeline, would he not have to go back to before Black Widow died to return the Soul Stone?
Answer: No before Black Widow died the soul stone was still there, he had to get it back after it was taken, so after Black Widow died.
I think the poster meant he would go back to the time he knew Black Widow and Hawkeye were aiming for, or a bit before for safety, then go there and wait until Black Widow died and Hawkeye got the stone, and then return it. It would be hard for him to watch, but then he would know when the right time was.
Right. But you also have to think that, having witnessed the events, and then seeing that the Red Skull is the guardian, that would have been a damn interesting scene to watch. Does Cap try bargaining with the Red Skull to return Black Widow to life after giving the stone back? On the other hand, the Ancient One's explanation was that the flow of time occurs simply because the stones are in the universe. I don't think it mattered where they are. She only wanted the time stone back because of how it was tied to the Sanctum. So really, Cap probably could have just thrown the stone in a ditch somewhere and been done with it. It also raises a question about the nature of Vormir as the home of the stone. We see the other stones were more or less fashioned into artifacts and out and about. This implies that they too were in some sort of temple in their raw stone form before being found, seized and manipulated into a real-world application. So does Vormir even have a mechanism for receiving the stone back once it's been claimed? And what is the soul stone's solo power, anyway? Reading people's fates like a crystal ball?
I don't think the red skull is really the red skull anymore, just some kind of ghost of whats left of him. However the stone gets returned is irrelevant, yes he could even just leave it in a ditch somewhere. He didn't return other stones in their original form either, except the time stone. These timelines don't continue on as the original one. According to the comics the soul stone is sentient and everyone sacrificed to obtain is has their soul trapped inside the gem. Cap and the others of course don't know that (although Hulk must theoretically know having used it) or in the MCU this does not apply. When possessing it you can control any life and read their souls (their feelings and desires). One can also revert living things back their original state (like Nebula for example).
12th Aug 2019
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Stupidity: This film reveals that the theme park was built upon a dormant volcano. This means that John Hammond either neglected to do a geological survey when picking a location for his park, or simply ignored it and foolishly gambled that the volcano would never erupt.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Lots of people live right next to dormant volcanos. It can be thousands of years before a dormant volcano erupts. Might be a risk, but not as much as lets say living on a tectonic boundary or in tornado alley.
There's a difference between assuming the risk of living in an area prone to a natural disaster versus building a theme park that's completely reliant on tourism revenue in an area prone to a natural disaster. If a person's home is destroyed by a volcano, they can eventually get a new home, even if it takes a year or two. If a multi-billion dollar theme park is destroyed by a volcano, it's not something that can be replaced so easily, especially since no insurance company in their right mind would cover any of it. Additionally, the island in this film is fictional, which means the writers deliberately chose for a volcanic eruption to be the reason for the evacuation, when they could have just as easily made it so that the military decides to carpet-bomb the island or send in ground troops to gun down all the dinosaurs.
A dormant volcano is a dormant volcano, no reason to think it will erupt only years after you build a theme park on it. The area is not "prone" to a natural disaster. The eruption is a total surprise. Vesuvius erupts once every 2 decades or something and a lot more than a simple theme park is inside its destruction zone (red zone), including 800,000 people. And that is an active volcano. Take a look at Carney Park, a military recreational facility on top of a dormant volcano. Stupid?
Also, the examples you gave are areas with civilian populations that rely on those types of attractions to help stimulate the local economy. Isla Nublar is a privately owned island with no civilian population to speak of, other than park employees, meaning it is 100% reliant on tourism for its revenue.
How many theme parks are built in California, which is severely prone to earthquakes?
That's not an apples to apples comparison. California has a heavy civilian population and theme parks help contribute to their economy. Jurassic World is located on an isolated island with no civilian population and has to rely completely on tourism to stay in business.
12th Aug 2019
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Question: Why would the Trade Federation need the queen to sign a treaty to make their invasion legal if they've already invaded the place and taken over anyway?
21st Jun 2010
Minority Report (2002)
Plot hole: In the scene where Anderton is talking with Hineman, she says to him that "You will bring down the [Precrime] system yourself if you manage to kill your victim. That would be the most spectacular public display of how Precrime didn't work." Shouldn't she be saying "If you manage to not kill your victim"? (01:01:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Well, if Crow did die, then Precrime wouldn't have worked because the whole point is to stop murder from occurring at all.
Ether way it is a hit against precrime. If he does not kill Crow then it shows that the vision may not come true so you do not know if someone would really have killed someone else, outside situation like with the cheating wife at the start where they interrupted the murder. If Crow is murdered then it shows the system is flawed, which would not be as bad as the first as you would still be stopping a lot of the murders.
I can't tell if this reply is suggesting the correction is wrong or stating the line should be "not kill", making the mistake valid. By not killing the victim, that shows how Precrime is actually working and that knowing the future means you can alter it. If the murder occurs, it would weaken Precrime's stance and support that it can prevent crime.
No if he chooses not to kill Crowe then that means that the visions are just a version of the future, and thus not the actual future. So all the people with the halo on them are locked up wrongfully, as they may have decided not to do it like Anderton did, so the system collapses. That was the point, and it did. Hineman's remark is about the idea that precrime stops all murders, unless Andrton does manage to kill Crowe. The system then is flawed but like the previous commentor says, they still prevent most murders instead of all of them, which would count for something.
3rd Sep 2004
Minority Report (2002)
Corrected entry: When Lamar shoots Colin Farrell, where was a pre-cog ball?
Correction: It's explained quite clearly in the film - unless the three precogs are together, it doesn't work. As Agatha is away from the twins, off with Anderton, there's no precognition, so Lamar can kill Witwer without being picked up.
The question still remains though: why was there no pre-cog ball of Witwer's murder rolling, before Agatha was kidnapped by Anderton? Witwer's murder happened a few hours after Crowe's death, hence the pre-vision of Witwer's murder could have easily occurred a few hours after the pre-vision of Crowe's death.
The decision to murder Wither was not made until after Agatha was taken. As stated at the beginning of the film premeditated murder gives them more time to look at the visions and decode the information, crimes of passion only give them minutes.
Well yeah but they aren't attained only after the decision is made by the perpetrator. Anderton got his ball well before he even knew he would do anything. His ball came hours before the intended murder, so should Lamar's. I like this question.
But with Anderton there were events that lead to the murder that happened before he knew anything, like Burgess hiring Crow to be the victim. So somehow the Precogs pickup on that and created a ball. With Wither there was nothing before hand that would trigger the Precogs.
The PreCrime system works by the PreCogs scanning for people with the intent to kill and then determining details. Burgess' intent to murder Witwer came well after Agatha was disconnected, when he discovered that Witwer knew about the framing of Anderton. Therefore, there couldn't have been a ball, as the system was offline.
Correction: It's because Burgess' murder of Witwer would count as a red ball since he doesn't have any reason to murder Witwer until Witwer reveals he's getting too close to uncovering the truth. By the time the precogs would normally have foreseen such a murder (remembering the movie states red ball killings only have a few minutes worth of warning) Agatha has long since been removed from the equation so yes, it makes sense Witwer's death isn't picked up ahead of time.
2nd Aug 2019
True Lies (1994)
Corrected entry: After Bill Paxton pisses himself at the bridge, you see Arnold and Tom walking back towards the van. If you look, it's not Tom Arnold, but some other guy with the same build. The face is obviously different.
Correction: No it's not. That's definitely Tom Arnold. It begs the question as to why they would have a stand-in just for that one scene.
Re stand-ins, as various Friends mistakes demonstrate, stand-ins are often used when the star isn't really needed, due to the shot being from far away, or them being mostly offscreen, etc. Might be the star is done for the day and leaves set, then they suddenly want a pickup shot or a change of scheduling and they work with what they've got.
I agree it is definitely Tom Arnold, but there are many possible reasons for using a stand-in for just one scene, so it begs the questions why you think it begs the question.
But since Tom Arnold was available for the shot it begs the question of why you begged the question about begging the question. I'll get me coat.
I agree with LordSkyegon. There is no reason to use a stand-in in that scene.
13th May 2004
Van Helsing (2004)
Corrected entry: Van Helsing's plan was to kill Dracula and have the antidote injected by midnight, within the time that it takes for the clock to chime 12 times. The fight scene took much longer than that, but the antidote still worked later.
Correction: The antidote cures the curse of the werewolf, no matter how long one has been a werewolf. If it only worked until the final stroke of midnight during the first full-moon, there would be no reason of keeping it, as it would be useless after a certain period of time. And at that time, no werewolves were working for Dracula (Both of the others were killed)
Carl says that they have until the stroke of midnight to get the antidote into Van Helsing before he's stuck with lycanthropy forever.
I assume Carl was mistaken, as it would be quite useless for Dracula to have the antidote if it worked only for a short time from first transformation to the last stroke of midnight. Dracula had the antidote to cure werewolves who opposed him before getting bitten, so obviously the antidote could be used any time. And it indeed worked even after the last stroke of midnight.
I'd gotten the idea that the curse is permanent after the 12th stroke of midnight specifically during a full moon and they become Dracula's slave and a permanent wolf and then the cure is useless. Dracula keeps the cure in case there is a werewolf that can resist his dominance, but after the 12th stroke of midnight they are his slave forever and he doesn't need the cure anymore (except maybe a new werewolf). This is what would happen to Van Helsing as well. Carl and Anna only say they have to kill Van Helsing after midnight, certainly if he didn't manage to kill Dracula, or he becomes his most powerful slave. They say it probably because he would loose control and becomes Dracula's slave and become too dangerous to approach. They can't have the werewolf loose onto the world even if he does kill Dracula, as he would still lose his control and be a permanent Werewolf.
4th Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Continuity mistake: When the camera is panning over the entire army on the Avengers' side for the first time, Captain America is standing in front of everyone, and his shield is intact and round again, while Thanos broke it earlier. The next time we see it, it's back to being broken.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The top half of his shield was broken off. When he is standing in front of Thanos' army, you can only see the bottom, intact half.
No no, the mistake is about the wide shot where you only see Captain America really small. He has a full shield there (as he is just CGI).
3rd Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Corrected entry: When Rocket pets Scott Lang's hair, one can see an artifact of the motion-capture performer's actual human-sized hand moving Paul Rudd's hair. As a result, Rocket's small hand moves far more hair without actually touching it. (01:04:15)
Correction: This entry is ridiculous. A full sized hand could move all the hair on his head simultaneously. Only the front bit of his hair moves, almost exactly the spot Rocket is supposed to touch. It might not be perfect but it looks quite genuine.
The front bit moves exactly where Rocket touched it... and then a little bit more. It is especially telling where Rocket's fingers end and yet the hair inexplicably moves as if his fingers were longer than they actually were.
3rd Aug 2019
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: In the droid factory, when the smasher crushes what Anakin's arm is trapped in, his lightsaber shoots out, but how is it when his arm is released from it, it's now back in his hand as if it never shot out? It seems too noticeable to be a mistake.
Answer: I watched the clip on YouTube. It's hard to see, but Anakin's light saber is always in his hand. Just after the light blade is switched off, the sword's hilt can still be seen in his palm as his arm is trapped. When his arm is freed, he's still holding the light saber, but it has been damaged.
Yeah the top part of the lightsaber is cut off by the machine and bounces off. I think that what the question asker is referring to, mistaking it for the entire saber.
31st Jul 2019
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Since it was possible to create a clone army, why were cybernetic parts given to Anakin, instead of cloning the limbs he lost and attaching them to his body?
Answer: To add to the above it is not just that he is missing arms and legs but his internal organs like lungs are incapable of working properly. So one would have to do more then just replace the arms and legs. In addition Palpatine make the suit vulnerable to force lighting making it harder for Vader to overthrow him as is the way of the Sith.
Answer: Adding to what Phaneron, also note how long it would take to grow said limbs for a full adult. The clones themselves have growth acceleration so that they take half the time a normal person to reach full maturity and growth. But this still takes 10-15 years for the to get to physical adulthood. And their growth acceleration doesn't stop at that point. The reason why none of the Storm Troopers are Clones in the original trilogy, by the time New Hope rolls around, is because they age twice as fast. Most died of old age or were very old by that point as in that 17 year time gap between Episode 3 and 4, they aged 34 years physically, without the growth acceleration being stopped as it's likely not able to be stopped. So it would take a very long time to grow cloned limbs for Anakin and be physically a match for him. And if they did accelerate the growth for said limbs, it would only take a few years before he'd be a younger guy walking around with very old man legs and arms. Not to mention, the arms and legs wouldn't have his muscle mass grown by default without being used.
27th Aug 2001
Jurassic Park (1993)
Corrected entry: When the doctor is showing off the piece of amber that they have gotten the DNA from, there is a problem. The mosquito in the amber is a male, as one can tell by the antennae. Because it is only the female mosquito that feeds on blood, the male should only have nectar in its stomach. To make it worse, in that species of mosquito, Toxirhynchites, both the males AND females are flower feeders, and would therefore have no blood, or dinosaur DNA in their stomachs. (00:25:00)
Correction: Can we not just assume that the mosquito in Amber in the cane is just symbolic and doesn't necessarily have to be the exact species and gender of the mosquitoes that yielded the dino blood and DNA?
Using the actual mosquito will have more meaning to Hammond than a random one. John is also shown to want only the best.
I don't know. I would think that a mosquito preserved in Amber containing dinosaur blood would be exceptionally rare and probably not the kind of thing you'd waste on a cane.
Correction: Hammond's company, InGen, did not deal exclusively with dinosaurs. Dr. Ellie Sattler, the paleo-botanist, observed and mentioned that Jurassic Park was also full of ancient and extinct plant life. InGen used the same process to procure vegetable DNA from ancient insects (such as the Toxirhynchites mosquitoes) that fed on vegetable matter. It's the same process.
Plant sap is composed mostly of water and dissolved sugars, hormones and carbohydrates. It does not contain any DNA.
Incorrect. Plant genomics research shows that plant fluids do, indeed, contain plant DNA. Moreover, a single mosquito could yield the DNA of several different plants, as well as the mosquito's own DNA and the DNA of microbes consumed along with the plant fluids.
Correction: The mosquito in the amber is not one that supplied the DNA for the dinosaurs. We know this because there is no drill hole for the extraction. When the extraction process is shown, a hole several millimetres across is drilled into the amber.
Correction: Plant sap consists of water, some simple sugars, more complex carbohydrates and plant hormones. It does not contain any DNA at all.
It's about the mosquito inside the amber, not the amber itself. Anyway, plant sap most definitely contains DNA, just plant DNA. All living organisms have DNA.
Plant sap does not contain DNA. Phloem sap consists primarily of sugars, hormones, and mineral elements dissolved in water. DNA is polar due to its highly charged phosphate groups and dissolves easily in water. Transporting dissolved DNA would be utterly pointless.
Fine, the amber doesn't contain DNA (it's fossilized anyway). It's still a bad correction.
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.
Correction: They weren't available in the real world in 1992. This is science fiction though, and there are mutants both in the films and the comics they are based on that are extremely intelligent and innovative. The character Forge for example, who does not appear in the films but may exist offscreen, has the mutant ability to basically invent anything. Beast is also intelligent enough to invent LCD screens a lot sooner than we had them. He did create Cerebro in the early 1960's after all, which is a piece of technology that we in the real world to this day do not possess.
Phaneron ★
Next to that the first LCD screens came at the end of the 80's though in low quality and small. By 1992 they were very expensive but a lot better. The actual invention of the LCD technology was as far back as the 1960's.
lionhead
Agreed that the Beast had the smarts to develop LCD screens but the story should be based on reality. For example if the Beast had pulled out an iPhone, it wouldn't fit the narrative, but the Beast would easily be able to construct such a device should he wish to.
Why should the story be based on reality? The movie doesn't take place in the real world. Should the president in the movie be George Bush since that would have reflected reality? The LCD monitors serve a purpose for the scene. While it technically wouldn't have been a mistake for Beast to have in invented one, an iPhone wouldn't serve any purpose for any of the scenes in the movie.
Phaneron ★