Are there any TV shows that had such bad ratings/view numbers, they were taken off the air rather quickly? After just one, two, three episodes?
Jon Sandys
3rd Mar 2022
General questions
Answer: Tons. One random example which comes to mind is 2007's Drive, starring Nathan Fillion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_ (2007_TV_series). Only 4 episodes aired before it was pulled off air. It was actually quite a promising show, but the ratings just didn't hold up. "Heil Honey I'm Home!" is one of the more notorious examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heil_Honey_I%27m_Home!, a sitcom about Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun living next door to a Jewish couple, cancelled after one episode. More here: https://tvovermind.com/six-short-lived-tv-shows/ and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_series_canceled_after_one_episode.
14th Feb 2022
WarGames (1983)
Question: In the opening sequence, the younger silo guy is about to shoot his partner for not turning his key as ordered. What would be the point of this? If they have to turn the keys simultaneously then how would killing the other guy help? You'd just have a dead guy with nobody to turn the other key.
Answer: But if he doesn't turn the key, they can't launch anyway. So threatening his life results in either a) his death, and nothing's different from him refusing to turn the key, or b) him giving in and turning his key.
Answer: The younger one threatening to shoot knows that if he kills the other guy, he cannot launch the missiles alone. He is betting that by threatening to shoot his partner, he will force him into complying with the order in order to save his own life. It's a situation where the older guy may or may not comply, but at least there's a chance.
Answer: The reason the missile launch crew is armed is to stop one from going rogue and trying to launch without permission. The scene where he threatens to shoot the other one for refusing to launch is dramatic, but totally untrue.
Answer: The opening sequence was a test and I think only the older guy didn't know it was a test. The younger guy actually knew it was a test and was there to threaten him with death as part of the test. Later we find out that 22% of missile commanders failed to launch. So the fact that the younger guy calls the other one "sir", makes it seem (to me) that the older guy was the missile commander and was the only one actually being tested. So when they kept saying "these men", I think they're referring to the commanders being tested and not the pair of men we saw.
3rd Feb 2022
Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995)
Question: Why did Simon send John to walk the streets with THAT sign on him? The whole point was to use him to cover up his Federal Reserve heist. If John had've died in the very first "Simon says", he wouldn't have been able to play the second "Simon says" causing the subway under the Federal Reserve to blow up, nor use the "a bomb in a school will blow up unless John does this" because John would be dead... So why have him do something he knew could get him killed?
Answer: Because he wanted John dead. Simon didn't "need" anyone to play a game to blow up the subway, and the point of threatening the schools was to occupy the police. John still being alive just gave Simon more opportunities to run him around and mess with him, hopefully with him dying in the process.
Answer: He wanted John humiliated and hurt to show the police he has complete power over them, privately to see him suffer for killing his brother, Hans. The rest was like you said to have the police and Feds running in circles, occupying them from the Gold heist.
27th Dec 2021
Cheers (1982)
Question: When this episode first aired, Sam torments Rebecca about her incarcerated boyfriend by constantly playing Bobby Fuller's 'I Fought the Law.' When I watched the rerun on Hulu, however, the song was replaced with another song, and a lyric search shows it doesn't even seem to be an actual song ever recorded by anyone. Why is this?
Answer: Various films / shows have run into licensing issues in the streaming era for songs they used when first broadcast. I think it's even happened with DVDs, but less often. The license expires or didn't cover non-broadcast use, and it's easier / cheaper to use different music. The Charmed theme tune is a famous example - Netflix's version is completely different from the original.
27th Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Question: Surely 'curing' the villains and sending them back to their own universes will have severe implications on the timeline. For example if Norman Osborn never dies in Spider-Man, then Harry never finds out, never becomes the new goblin and wouldn't be able to save Peter in Spider-Man 3?
Answer: Potentially, but there are way too many variables. Changes to the original Spider-Man timeline might have such ramifications that the events of the third film never come to pass at all! Or indeed the Norman Osborn that we see might be a variant of the one in the Spider-Man film, with his own timeline, or indeed making changes to the original timeline might split off multiple alternate timelines. There's just no definitive answer.
13th Dec 2021
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
Question: Why do they blow up the vault twice? And actually, is it technically three explosions? The fake tape: 1, the actual explosion when Yen was inside: 2, and the third for Benedict to hear when they're packing up the money, this is when you hear, "someone's here someone's here!"
Answer: Yes it's three, but for different reasons. The tape was made before the heist, off-site, to be synchronised with the explosion for Benedict's benefit after the "SWAT team" enter. The small explosion with Yen inside was to disable the sensors, and the explosion for Benedict's benefit was to make it all seem authentic, plus give the impression that the money bags had been detonated.
14th Nov 2021
General questions
There's a movie or maybe TV show where at the end two little kids get adopted - a boy who's black and a blonde haired white girl. Someone crouches down to them, maybe in an airport, and asks if they want to come with them. Any clues what this is from?
Chosen answer: Something similar happens in one of the final episodes of the sitcom "30 Rock." Liz Lemon ends up adopting two children that she picks up from an airport - a black boy named Terry and a blond white girl named Janet - who humorously and ironically have almost the exact same personalities as her annoying co-workers Tracey and Jenna. Could that be it?
Aha, that's it! My wife sends her thanks, that was annoying her. :-).
10th Nov 2021
General questions
I need to know what movie 2 guys hold their hand over a candle to see who can last longer. I'm sure the record is like 2 minutes 25 seconds or something...the vet gives up and the other guy keeps going, and they say OK you've proved your point.
Answer: This also happens near the beginning of S3E3 of the British TV show Ultimate Force, exactly as you describe. They compete to hold their hands over a candle with a glass of water balanced on top. Henno (the leader) held the old record, at 2 minutes 20 seconds, but this time he loses. The other guy, Ed, keeps going until 2:32, even though Henno and the others are urging him to stop, saying he's won.
Answer: There's a scene in "Will: The Autobiography of G. Gordon Liddy" where he holds his hand over a candle flame. There's also a scene in "The Odds" (2018) where the first game contestants have to hold their hand over a candle flame the longest. But it's a woman and the contestants are in separate rooms.
Answer: Something like this happens in Lethal Weapon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm_0VN2T2no.
22nd Oct 2021
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Question: Why weren't scenes of this movie filmed in chronological order? It is evident when Vernon grabs Harry who wanted to escape into his cupboard with his letter. When Harry shouted at Vernon, his voice sounded much deeper than in all other scenes, indicating that Daniel Radcliffe's voice started changing, thus confirming it to be one of the last, possibly the last scene to be shot. But this scene happens early in the movie, it is one of the first scenes. So why was it shot as one of the last scenes?
Answer: Because almost every film is shot entirely out of order, depending on schedules, availability, efficiency, etc. No point setting up a classroom set for one scene, then taking it all down, then a week later setting it all up again. All related scenes will likely be filmed at the same time. No doubt the likelihood of voices changes wasn't deemed as important as other factors, not least because lines could always be re-recorded and dubbed later.
7th Sep 2021
Friends (1994)
The One With Barry & Mindy's Wedding - S2-E24
Question: Why are Monica and Richard invited to Barry's wedding? Monica wasn't even invited to Barry's first wedding to Rachel, they did not know each other.
Answer: I agree with the other answers. Another possibility is, Rachel was close friends with both Monica and Mindy in high school. Mindy was likely friends with Monica, and therefore invited her to the wedding along with Rachel, knowing they were roommates. Richard has known the Geller and Green families for years and may also know Mindy's parents and was invited separately. He could be Monica's +1, or she his, but even if both were invited separately, they are still attending as a couple. Monica wasn't invited to Rachel and Barry's wedding because the girls had lost touch after high school and Monica moved to NYC.
Answer: It's never explained, and the writers probably didn't gave it serious thought, just using their presence at the wedding as a plot device. But since, as you say, Monica was not invited to Rachel's wedding, the most logical explanation is that Richard is the invitee, and Monica is his +1. Richard and Barry are both doctors and so could know one another, or perhaps Richard is friends with Barry's, or Mindy's, parents. If the latter, this would not be unbelievable, as Mindy's parents would likely be in the same circle as the Gellers, with whom Richard is close.
6th Sep 2021
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: When Marty arrives back in 1985 in the first movie, he leaves the DeLorean behind near the clocktower to chase after the Libyans because it stalls on him. There are now two DeLoreans in 1985; the one at Lone Pines Mall that gets used for the rest of the series until its eventual destruction, and the one near the clocktower. What happens to the latter?
Answer: The Lone Pine Mall DeLorean goes to 1955, then returns to 1985 with Marty, and he leaves it at the clock tower, runs back to the mall and sees the point in time when he first went back to 1955. The "clocktower" DeLorean is then the one Doc takes to the future and gets converted to hover. So the DeLorean goes 1985 > 1955 > 1985 > 2015, in this movie. (And then in the subsequent films the "wrong" 1985, back to 1955, then to 1885, and returns to the "right" 1985 when it's destroyed by the train).
12th Jul 2021
Black Widow (2021)
Question: Spoilers! The woman who Yelena kills at the start isn't seen hugely, but bears a passing resemblance to Olga Kurylenko, who's in the opening credits but isn't actually seen until nearly the end of the film. Does anyone know if this was a deliberate choice to misdirect more casting-savvy viewers as to the part she actually plays, or am I misremembering, and the woman at the start doesn't look much like her at all?
Chosen answer: Are you talking about the woman who has the mind control antidote that ends up freeing Yelena from the Red Room's control? She's a rogue ex-Widow named Oksana played by martial artist and stunt coordinator Michelle Lee.
That's her. It's only a semi-resemblance, but was close enough that I basically assumed if that was Olga Kurylenko she'd had her role cut down, or was a cameo, or might appear in flashbacks. Either way I didn't spend the film thinking "when's Olga Kurylenko showing up?", and anyone asking that of themselves presumably might figure out who was playing Taskmaster before the big reveal. I might just be overthinking it of course. :-).
I actually thought it might have been Olga Kurylenko at first as well.
16th Mar 2021
Opportunity Knocks (1990)
Question: At the end of the movie, it is not Dana Carvey getting run into by the car, but it is a stunt double, as he has a different style of hair than Carvey. However, even after the take with the car accident, the stunt double is still seen lying on the road in front of the car, even after the take has already finished with the accident. Why does the stunt double need to be there in place of Carvey, being that there is no danger to Carvey in this situation?
Answer: Either consistency with the prior accident shot, or else simply that stunt performers and stand-ins are cheaper than stars, and are often utilised for shots where the main actor doesn't *need* to be physically present - shots from afar, behind, etc. For example the multiple mistakes in the widescreen versions of Friends where it becomes clear the person at the edge of shot who in the original versions was just seen as "the back of Monica's head" for example. Wasn't actually Courteney Cox but a stand-in: https://www.moviemistakes.com/picture174481.
16th Mar 2021
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Question: When McClane asks Barnes to 'break the code' on one of the baddies' Walkie Talkies, Barnes tells him it is impossible as it is a 10 button device with a 6 digit readout..."There could be a million combinations!" How can there be a million combinations? Surely the largest number on a 6 digit readout is 999,999.
Answer: You forgot 000000.
Answer: Totally agree with the other answer, but also, someone saying, "There could be a million combinations!" can also just be a deliberate hyperbole, and never meant to be taken literally. It's like saying, "I told you that a thousand times already."
Except that a 6-digit code literally has a million combinations. It's not hyperbole at all.
Oh really? No kidding? Never disputed that there was one million combinations. The character, however, could have intended his comment as a hyperbolized, off-the-cuff remark that was not meant to be an exact number count. He said, "There COULD be a million combinations!" He did not say, "There are precisely one million combinations." He could have meant it either way. There was more than one way to interpret what he said.
This is a strange situation because the wording suggests that Barnes is using hyperbole ("there COULD be a million combinations..."), but mathematically the number of possible combinations with a 0-9 keypad and a 6 digit readout is exactly 1 million (10x10x10x10x10x10 = 1,000,000). So he is technically not using hyperbole but that was his intent. So it's both hyperbole and not hyperbole at the same time. It's kind of fascinating, actually.
3rd Mar 2021
Lucifer (2015)
Question: Can somebody explain to me how in Season 4, it's stated that Chloe disappeared after seeing Lucifer's devil face. Apparently the cops rushed into the shootout scene with Cain and took her away, and she hasn't seen Lucifer since. What about in season 3 episode 25 Boo Normal when she worked a case with Lucifer and Ella. Ella confided in Chloe that she sees a ghost and Chloe believed her, and she said she's seen some crazy stuff herself lately. So what's up with her vanishing when she seen him.
Answer: Boo Normal and Once Upon a Time were going to be part of season 4, then the show got cancelled (before being picked up elsewhere). As such they were added on to the end of season three as "bonus" episodes, hence the continuity being off. But not really a mistake, just a quirk of broadcasting. Boo Normal was originally going to be between the episodes "High School Poppycock" and "Infernal Guinea Pig" in season 3 before being slated for season 4, presumably because aside from the point you've raised, it was fairly flexible, continuity-wise.
13th Nov 2018
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: They didn't make it out of the cave with the grail because they dawdled... I wonder, would someone be able to make it out running at a dead sprint once they crossed the seal? And if so, does that mean that they're home free? Or would disaster follow them outside of the cave?
Answer: The implication is that disaster would follow them outside of the cave as well. It wouldn't make much sense if you could simply outrun the disaster.
"Followed by disaster" is a kind of curse, a thing not common in Christianity. It doesn't make much sense anyhow. A seal is just a dot - OK, so let's at least grant that the seal represents a circle that the grail has to stay in. Who decided where those borders are? The grail was taken there during the first crusade. That was closer to 1938 than it was to 33 AD. The three knights could move the grail about then. Why not afterwards? The knights could have built the traps. But the borders could only have been set by god, in an unusually late and completely atypical miracle.
There are several examples of curses in the Christian Bible: Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at Sodom, the plagues visited upon Egypt, Adam and Eve are cursed for eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, etc. The knights did not move the grail around after finding it, they stayed in the temple for 150 years and then two left leaving the third behind. The great seal and it's restriction was already in place when the knights got there.
Where in the movie is that stated? I interpreted the knight's story as them having made that place. Looks like it isn't actually specified. But if God made it, then I submit that he would have used Greek, not Latin, for the stepping stones. (All of those curses are from the old testament. The book where god kills firstborn children as long as they're Egyptian. Grail is by definition new testament where you turn the other cheek. There simply are no curses in the gospel, that's just not how Jesus rolled).
The tests were made by the knights, but the seal had God's power in it. Just like the cup.
It's still a bit dodgy. What if you take a shovel and dig yourself a back door? Basically this film really excels at stuff that makes no sense but helps the storytelling, or to be precise, creates dramatic effects.
Every fictional story is like that in some way. That's why it's called fictional. It's just a story.
Not a particularly convincing argument, "stuff happens for no reason all the time", if I may say so. Why is this website even here then? The fact is that some stories are more coherent than others. (♫ "In olden days, a hole in the plot, would seem to matter, quite a lot. Now heaven knows, anything goes..." ♫);).
It's the difference in what story they want told. Is it a fairy tale or based on actual events? A huge difference in plausibility between the two. The site is there to look at mistakes, not how believable the story is.
It is not set in another universe so plausibility isn't somehow suspended. Maybe take a look at the categories recognised by this website. Plot holes, factual errors, even stupidity. (They? Who are they?).
It is set in a fictional universe because it's not a true story. With "they" I mean the writers/director. Mistakes in a plot (plot holes) have nothing to do with how believable the story is. As long as it's plausible, it's not a mistake.
Pretty sure it's the same universe, just with some added characters/events. What about the total lack of spaceships or orcs or talking animals for example? The seal business is not a mistake YET, but it's very dodgy because no-one knows how it works or why. Like all Indys "trapped" secret places, it's (among other things) unclear who resets the traps for the next visitor. We can't brush it ALL off as "the hand of god" every time.
Huge amounts of stuff in films isn't exhaustively explained. Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that's perfectly believable. There's zero evidence either way to say how "followed by disaster" would manifest, and just because there's not a thorough explanation doesn't mean that it's "dodgy", and it's not worth bickering about either, because there's no concrete answer either way.
OK but I would like to note that not everyone who offers creative explanations has recently seen the movie; some people just invent their own. E.g. "followed by disaster" is not an actual explanation from the movie, it was just one of the suggestions made here and only here. Or the ones on my own question below. All I'm saying is, it's very hard to tell what the "rules" / "logic" of this place are supposed to be, so I understand what the OP was driving at.
19th Feb 2021
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Just before Doc shows his plan with the DeLorean and the train Marty checks the walkie-talkies and Doc confirms it that they work. How are they able to get the walkie-talkies to work in 1885? I'm thinking Doc invented something so Doc and Marty can communicate with each other with them.
Answer: Given Doc's scientific ability (and some suspension of disbelief) it would be easy enough to rig up a makeshift battery that would last long enough. Or indeed they've just got lucky and the walkie-talkies' batteries still have enough life in them. They're not mobile phones, they don't need masts or any infrastructure, they just connect directly to each other.
Like you said, walkie-talkies work independently of any infrastructure, which is what I think the question was more about. However, the battery was invented way before 1885 with the first lead acid rechargeable battery being invented in 1859 with pasted electrode batteries being invented in the 1880's. So it's less about Doc rigging up a battery and just using what's already available or charging the batteries it came with (if we are assuming the batteries ran out of power).
The best batteries they had in those days were crude, wet batteries made out of earthenware and filled with sulphuric acid. They were cumbersome, dangerous and didn't have a lot of voltage or low current. Hardly suitable for a walkie-talkie that needs at least 9 volts. But I suppose it's possible Doc had some charged self-made batteries sitting at home to keep them going.
Definitely not "crude", certainly not as advanced as today, but the lead acid battery is the same technology a lot of batteries use today. They even had electric vehicles prior to 1885. My point was Doc didn't have to invent technology that didn't exist (as opposed to what some say he would have to do to get an 80's camcorder to play on a 50's TV). They had rechargeable batteries back then so it wouldn't be a stretch that Doc could recharge the batteries he had.
Answer: 1955 Doc got him some new batteries ("Just in case, fresh batteries for your walkie talkie. Oh what about that floating device?") They only used them on the train so the batteries would still be charged. In regards to how they work, they don't rely on phone masts, satellites, WiFi etc as they send radio waves to each other and not to any sort of base station.
5th Feb 2021
WandaVision (2021)
On a Very Special Episode... - S1-E5
Question: The intro sequence for this episode seems most closely based on Growing Pains, with a dash of Family Ties, but the painting being coloured in really reminds me of something else, I assume another TV show, but can't place it. Any inspiration?
Chosen answer: The living painting is taken straight from the Family Ties intro.
Ah, that makes sense - I first saw this one on Youtube, which at a guess was the first season or an early version? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPRdtO6UKD0. But yeah, this is exactly right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip1szfz9nZ8.
Answer: I noticed that too and although I can't think of any sitcom starting like that it does remind me strongly of Bob Ross "The Joy of Painting" intro, which was from the 80's as well.
17th Nov 2020
General questions
Why is it that recent movie adaptations of old TV shows (specifically Starsky and Hutch, Baywatch and 21 Jump Street) were turned into parodies? Why weren't any of them played straight?
Answer: Because the filmmakers of today view therm as parodies. I admit the writing and directing style is not as sophisticated as today's work, but they told good fun stories. Back then they tried to keep costs down by any means necessary.
Answer: It hedges bets in case the action doesn't work, studio can claim they meant for this all along. Also the Mission Impossible films are played straight.
Answer: I'm not claiming to know the definitive answer, but I suspect it is for the same reason there have been remakes of old movies: Hollywood is out of ideas for original movies, tries to keep a steady supply of releases to make money, and it is easier/quicker. Playing them "straight" would require creating a new, meaningful story which is much more demanding than "making fun" of something already done. Moreover, the old TV shows turned into movies probably will do better (make a higher profit) if the audience is not largely limited to the older generation who may have watched the old TV shows. Presumably, the younger generation doesn't find old TV shows appealing and may even already make fun of them. Others do not even know what the TV shows were about, so making a contemporary version would not have the same meaning (or nostalgia) for those viewers. Comedy is something all generations can enjoy... or find more interesting than a lame story about old TV characters who have been forgotten.
I'd concur with this - it's the "four quadrant" idea: movies which appeal to both male and female audiences, and both over - and under-25s. An action-comedy has broader appeal than a pure action/drama, and especially given the three examples referenced are viewed as somewhat cheesy throwbacks now, regardless of the appeal at the time, it makes sense to take a more light hearted approach. Miami Vice is once example that was played straight which could have been ripe for mockery - it got mixed reviews and didn't set the box office aflame.
11th Oct 2020
Law & Order (1990)
Question: Since when do women pay their ex-husbands alimony?
Answer: Since...always. Depends entirely on the balance of earnings / expenses in the couple. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-women-are-paying-alimonythat-includes-supporting-their-exs-porn-habit-2018-05-23.
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 Mike O'Malley Show" from 1999 was canceled after two episodes.
Phaneron ★