Question: When Michelangelo is in the village and wakes up in the shed for the first time, there are some kids that run in front of the camera. As they move we hear a very distinct sound effect of them giggling. Like the Wilhelm, this giggle sound effect is played in tons of movies and even commercials. Any idea what it is called?
Bishop73
26th Dec 2003
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)
2nd Sep 2003
We Were Soldiers (2002)
Corrected entry: In the film, Hal Moore repeatedly fires his weapon at NVA soldiers near the command post. In actuality no NVA soldiers got into the command post area, and Hal Moore never fired his weapon.
Correction: Artistic license, not a mistake.
This is still a factual error. Any factual error could be said to be "artistic licence." That doesn't mean it's not a factual error.
I don't think you really know the definition of "artistic licence" or "factual error." This movie is a dramatization, not a documentary. As such, film makers are free to use artistic licence to further the action and make the story more intense. Having Moore, for instance, use a gun that was made after the Vietnam War, would be a factual (historic) error.
It becomes a gray area and I agree the term "artistic license" is too much of a blanket statement that can be used to wipe away factual errors. Generally artistic or dramatic license can allow a film, show, or book based on a true store to have composite characters, fictional characters, or real characters doing things in dramatic fashion. But having NVA soldiers in an area they historically never were should be a mistake just like if a dramatization of Apollo 11 mission had a crew of 4.
1st Mar 2008
Porridge (1973)
Continuity mistake: In several episodes of the show, Richard Beckinsale's hair changes length and style during individual episodes.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not a mistake. The show takes place over more than a year in the prison. People change their hairstyle and length during that time. Just because episodes are next to each other does not mean they happen within a very short period of time.
While the mistake is vague and should include a specific example or two, the mistake is saying that within an episode the hair changes, not that the hair changes between episodes.
9th Dec 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: A human being cannot survive inside a closed refrigerator for even one hour, let alone overnight. They would suffer from a lack of oxygen and die. "Refrigerator death" is a rare occurrence but has happened on several occasions when children accidentally lock themselves in a fridge or if someone purposefully traps an individual in one.
Correction: Clearly it didn't work for him as he tried to commit suicide but was alive the next day. Maybe he got cold feet and exited quite quickly. Since the scene cuts after he closes the door you can't know what happened.
Incorrect. We see the refrigerator fully closing. When he closes it, it's night and when it cuts to the next scene it's morning, therefore he was in overnight.
Sure it closed, but you can't see he was in it all night. You can force yourself out of such types of fridge, if you have to.
So long as there is no scene specifically showing him crawl out of said refrigerator at dawn, there is no proof - implied or otherwise - he was in there overnight. As the previous entry corrected earlier, there is no way of knowing exactly how long he was inside for, and he obviously survived up until the end credits so the entire point or duration is moot.
Correction: It is possible the fridge just simply didn't seal fully. They are a poor family and likely have broken down old appliances. The airtight seals around the door could have been damaged thus letting air get inside, albeit even if just a little.
The fridge did close. Watch the scene, we here and see the fridge closing fully, it was night when he entered and the scene cuts to morning of the next day where it's daytime, so he was in the fridge overnight.
A refrigerator that is on, like the Joker's, has a fan that circulates cold air. The air comes from somewhere. A running refrigerator is not a vacuum.
There is so much wrong with this statement. First, that's not how refrigerators work. Second, asphyxiation doesn't occur in a vacuum. The mistake isn't claiming the Joker was in a vacuum.
10th Jul 2021
Black Widow (2021)
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.
27th Aug 2001
Beverly Hills Cop (1984)
Corrected entry: In several scenes Eddie Murphy is carrying a single action Browning Hi-Power semiauto. When it is drawn and supposed to be ready to use the hammer is not cocked - it simply won't fire until it is - but when he shoots it fires anyway.
Correction: If it is a double action pistol (which most are) it will in fact fire without the hammer being cocked. That is where the term "double action" comes from. It means that pulling the trigger pulls the hammer back, AND releases it to fire the gun. If it were a single action pistol (which most aren't), then it would have to be cocked before pulling the trigger would do anything. Since we never get a clear enough shot of the gun to tell the exact model, you can easily assume that it is a double-action pistol and pulling the trigger would fire it if the hammer was back or not.
The mistake is valid. Foley's gun is in fact a single-action semi-automatic. He's carrying a Browning Hi-Power. This is the gun he'll also use in part 2 and 3.
17th Jul 2021
The Virtuoso (2021)
Character mistake: Narrating, the Virtuoso said, "You leave your vehicle in long-term parking and rent a nondescript sedan. Dark colors are best." After the first murder, the Virtuoso drives away in a light-colored car (white or gray). (00:23:35 - 00:26:17)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Regarding rentals, he said " Dark colors are best, then gray."
10th Jun 2014
Sabotage (1936)
Question: Who played the actress who tried to return the song bird?
Sylvia Sidney plays Mrs. Verloc. The Poster is asking about the actress who appeared in one scene in the bird shop.
28th Aug 2003
Osmosis Jones (2001)
Corrected entry: After Frank's zit is popped, the "after-effects" (scabbing, etc.) seem to be skipped over, into normal skin again, and the healing process takes days for that to happen.
Correction: Some people and some zits don't scab as bad as others. This could be one of those that doesn't have much after effects.
While the zit scene was done as a gag, there's no sign of a previously popped zit. Even if it wasn't much, there should be something. Plus, in the body we see a hole and Jones says they're going to call for a scab.
16th May 2017
Osmosis Jones (2001)
Question: If Frank got Anthrax by eating the egg in the monkey's mouth, shouldn't that monkey have been dead anyway?
Answer: We are never told that the monkey was sick with the disease. The egg does fall out of the monkeys mouth and onto the ground where the virus could have easily been on the ground and it just happened to come into contact with the egg.
9th Jul 2021
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
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.
18th Apr 2012
Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)
Factual error: It is completely implausible that Rambo, an experienced green beret would be careless enough to get his gear caught in the plane while jumping out. Also even if he had gotten got, soldiers carry their gear in different layers that are quickly releasable via strap or clip just in case they do get stuck. Rambo would not have gotten stuck, and if he did he could detached his his gear easily and without all the drama.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Isn't it possible Rambo did this himself so as to get rid of all that useless crap they had given him? He had already stated the mind was the best weapon...why rely on the hi-tech stuff they packed off with him. Not only that but isn't it also plausible that in amongst it could have been a tracking device of some sort, and he didn't want to be tracked?
3rd May 2003
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Corrected entry: John Connor in the future should have sent back a terminator that didn't resemble the first one. Since he did, it tipped off the police and nearly made an enemy of Sarah Connor, when it should have been unrecognizable and earned her trust faster.
Correction: It's probably not very easy to capture a Terminator, especially with (apparently) absolutely zero damage to it. John got what he could and sent it back. Even if he did know that it was the same model that Skynet sent back to kill Sarah (which he may not have), it's still better than nothing, and there's no evidence to suggest that he could have gotten his hands on a different Terminator.
Correction: It should be noted, the T-800's all looked alike (at least the 101 models). Plus, adult John Connor remembers being saved by this particular model and therefore sends it back, regardless if there were other models with a different look.
You are mistaken. The future John Connor that send that terminator back does not remember the events of the movie. The future changes whenever something or someone is sent back without affecting that particular timeline. So the future John Connor that send that T-800 back is from the timeline after the first movie, not this one.
That statement I made regarding John remembering the T-800 comes directly from James Cameron himself, not something I made up or fan theory.
It might have been true when T-2 was the last movie, but later movies change that. I get it if people want to hang on to the original Cameron deal, but the continuity of the franchise disregards the old rules and comes up with new ones. The events of T-2 created the events of T-3 and thus it is a different John Connor.
Many consider T3 a soft reboot and not direct sequel meaning what's established in the film doesn't specifically alter what is established in Terminator 1 and 2.
20th Feb 2008
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Corrected entry: This movie takes place in L.A. You must be at least 21 to have a motorcycle licence in California. I'm pretty sure John isn't 21.
Correction: A kid that steals money from ATMs is not likely to care whether he has a license or not.
I agree he doesn't care. Not to mention John is supposed to be 10 at the time of the movie and the actor himself (Furlong) is only 13, so he didn't have any sort of license.
Also, John was riding a dirt bike, which is illegal to ride on public roadways regardless of the age of the rider, rather than a street-legal motorcycle. And, as Sacha said, John is hardly a law-abiding 10-year-old, as evidenced when the T-1000 uses the police car's computer and finds John's extensive police record.
28th Jun 2021
Adventures in Babysitting (1987)
Factual error: In the beginning of the movie when they are in the kitchen, over on the TV you can see an episode of the Price Is Right, but it was Friday evening. The Price Is Right is on in the morning, so it could not have been playing live on the TV at that time of day.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The Price is Right did night shows in the mid 80's, specifically from 1985-86.
Either you're referring to "Nighttime" The Price is Right, which ran for one season from '85-'86 or "Primetime" The Price is Right from '86. Neither of these two are what is on the TV in the scene. "Nighttime" was hosted by Tom Kennedy and "Primetime", Bob Barker wore a tux. In the scene, we see Bob Barker in regular clothes.
13th Sep 2003
Hollow Man (2000)
Corrected entry: Gorillas are almost exclusively herbivores. They have been observed eating small insects and grubs but nothing larger. So why does Isabelle eat a rat at the beginning of the film? The serum may have turned her into a crazed killer, as it does with Sebastian, but it hasn't changed the structure of her teeth and palate, biochemistry of her digestive system and so on, all of which would be required. She might kill or torture the rat, but she'd never eat it.
Correction: This entry is wrong. Gorillas can, and do eat meat, so the actions of the gorilla are believable. From feedingnature.com: "Gorillas will sometimes eat meat. They can catch small animals such as mice, rats, or birds and will eat these animals if they lack protein in their diet. The silverback gorilla has been known to eat meat and might even attack and eat other primates." Even if you dispute this fact, most people would believe that a gorilla is certainly capable of eating a rat.
Correction: Gorillas do sometimes eat meat, especially small animals. Also, Isabelle may not be getting fed the right foods resorting to her eating a rat. Humans will resort to drinking their own urine without access to water for a period of time, it's not far fetched that a gorilla will eat something that will be harmful to its body in a similar circumstance.
Gorillas do NOT eat rats. Inventing Deus Ex Machina explanations for a factual error (Isabelle was underfed so she was desperate for food!) does not invalidate the error. The posting needs a little more detail but is absolutely correct.
Wild gorillas have been documented (on camera) feeding on freshly-killed monkeys. Like chimpanzees and humans, gorillas are omnivores and are perfectly capable of eating and digesting raw meat.
I think speculation about her eating it because she's not fed a proper diet isn't valid. But it's plausible the serum made her vicious where she ate the rat. To say her teeth and digestive system are the reason why she wouldn't/couldn't eat the rat isn't valid either. My dog once ate my sock despite not having the teeth or digestive system required to eat socks.
To add, it was noted that the gorilla's mind has been affected by being invisible for so long causing her to be more aggressive. Especially when she bit Matt's hand.
But she didn't eat it regardless so everyone is making the same mistake (she bit it, perhaps from the rage side effect?).
Nonsense. She picks up the rat, bites it in half, and swallows it. If she spat it out, we'd see it. As we see later in the film, anything ingested by an invisible creature instantly becomes invisible, so why don't we see a bloodied half rat splatter on the cage floor? Because Isabelle chewed it up and swallowed it.
17th Apr 2021
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Factual error: When Cyborg is looking at video footage of Linda Reed, it shows her social security number (971-33-1276). But SS numbers don't start with 9, which is reserved for ITINs.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Technically correct but ITIN's are functionally used like SSN's so the point is moot.
You missed the point of the mistake. As you say, the mistake entry is correct. Using an ITIN as a social security number is different from calling it a SSN, which is what the mistake is. It would be like calling an identification card a driver's license because you can use a driver's license as an ID card.
11th Sep 2015
John Wick (2014)
Character mistake: When he called for a dinner reservation for 12 at his home it should have been 13, as he put 13 men down. (00:32:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually 14.
It's possible he simply miscounted in the heat of the moment. I'm not saying you're wrong was John doesn't seem like the type to make this sort of mistake but it could be let off as a character mistake rather than a movie mistake.
A character mistake is a valid movie mistake and this entry is listed as such.
26th Mar 2006
Frasier (1993)
Factual error: There are many factors concerning Niles' post-operative state which are very inaccurate. After open heart surgery it takes at least three months for the chest bone to heal, Niles would not be able to drive a car for weeks, nor would he be able to lift or twist which he does on the show. Also, he doesn't sport a scar. Your chest bone begins very high up, just below your neck, his scar should have been visible on numerous occasions.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He has a scar in season 11 episode 8. When he's naked in the cafe. A scar just like my dads from heart surgery.
While this mistake points out many different factors, I don't think this should qualify as a valid correction. The mistake is saying in season 10 he doesn't have a visible scar when he should and the correction points to seeing a scar a third of the way into season 11.
14th Apr 2004
Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003)
Question: I hear that Kyle Gass is supposed to be in this movie. Does someone know who he plays?
Answer: I can't find any credited source saying that Kyle Gass was in this movie.
Answer: I didn't do a thorough or very extensive search, but of the numerous sites I did check, I found ONE reference indicating that he WAS in the movie: tvguide.com. However, what part he played was not specified. There is a photo apparently showing what was probably a cameo, and it looks like he is one of two men standing in an interior doorway (such as in the cafeteria?). During my search, it became obvious that Kyle has had a minor role in MANY movies.
The TV guide site you're referencing is just wrong and I don't know why they added him. You'll notice he's the only one without a character name. And the picture they used isn't a still from the film. The "other man" in the picture is Jack Black. It should be noted that that the DVDs Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny; Dumber and Dumberer; and Run, Fat Boy, Run were sold as a 3-pack bundle in the US for a short time and maybe that's where someone thought Kyle Gass was in this film.
If you knew the tvguide.com site was "just wrong", why didn't you respond to the question a long time ago and state you know tvguide.com incorrectly lists him under "cast". Yada Yada yada? And offer a possible explanation as to why someone might have thought he was in the movie but you know he definitely wasn't? Or, didn't you know he wasn't in the movie? Have you at least contacted tvguide.com to inform the ed (s) that Gass wasn't in the movie but tvguide.com erroneously indicates he was?
I didn't answer the question because I've never heard of the rumor he was supposed to be in it. But I know the TV guide site is wrong because of preponderance of evidence, basic understanding of how to credit a source on the internet as being reliable or accurate with given information, there's no character name listed, and they used a still from The Pick of Destiny movie. Maybe someone did it as a joke like when JB said KG graduated from Juilliard at age 13.
I did think of the possibility that it was a joke... I never even heard of him before.
And what "proof" or objective information from a relevant, reliable source makes you so sure that you are right but tvguide.com is wrong?
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 don't belive it has a set name, other than giggle or laughter it is just a generic sound. Much like the Wilhelm, which I think fans named after hearing it in a lot of movies.
NoWhereMan
Ben Burtt, a sound designer who used the scream, is the one credited for naming it the Wilhelm scream. It's named after the character Private Wilhelm in the film "The Charge at Feather River" when the scream is dubbed in after he's shot.
Bishop73