Homer's Triple Bypass - S4-E11
Question: Bart and Lisa say they don't feel highs and lows because their generation watches MTV. Can someone explain more?
Bishop73
19th Oct 2023
The Simpsons (1989)
Answer: They probably mean that MTV has little to do with real life, and viewers became numbed and emotionally detached from reality by watching the contrived idealized images almost non-stop. It prevents them developing empathetic feelings toward others in their lives.
This episode aired Dec 1992, and given that it took 6-9 months to produce an episode, the writing took place early or mid 1992. MTV's first reality show, "The Real World", didn't air until May 1992. "Road Rules", MTV's 2nd reality TV show didn't air until 1995.
But that's all equally applicable to watching endless music videos, shortening attention spans. The fear is/was that constant "input" like that would slightly numb people to the real world, with exciting music/images being the only thing that generates an emotional response, in comparison to the more "boring" real world.
25th Mar 2018
The Running Man (1987)
Corrected entry: When Laughlin is having his explosive collar removed, one of Mic's men gives Richards a cigarette. Less than 30 seconds later, this has changed into a large cigar.
Correction: There is no cigarette involved in this scene. Richards had a large cigar the whole time.
I agree, it's always a cigar. The way the light hits the cigar gives the impression of a thin cigarette.
Around the 10:50 mark, as he says, "Hasn't been very popular lately", he raises what looks like a thin white cigarette to his mouth?
No. What you're seeing is a highlight along the side of his cigar.
12th Oct 2023
Stargate (1994)
Corrected entry: For both opening the Earth gate (they mention having never gotten beyond six symbols), then opening the Abydos gate after Daniel Jackson knows the first six symbols from that cavern, why can't they simply use trial and error to find the seventh symbol? For 40-odd symbols apiece on both, it would only take approximately that many guesses by process of elimination.
Correction: This mistake has already been corrected, twice. The military in control of the project might not have allowed them to experiment with different symbols simply because they didn't know what it might do. Not fully far fetched since the entire compound starts shaking when entering the 6th symbol. It might explode for all they know.
Then the Abydos gate alone. Six symbols down. One to go. 40 odd guesses, easy enough, less than an hour.
You missed the point of the correction. It could have been 4 options and still not worth the risk of entering the wrong symbol.
Well, we don't know if the gate on Abydos makes everything shake. So, I'd say there is a point there. But they only discover the symbols on Abydos till later. By then, they are already at the tribe, I think.
18th Mar 2012
Limitless (2011)
Question: How does Eddie get away with the apparent murder of the blonde woman in the apartment? I gather that even he doesn't know whether it was him or not but surely the Police would want to at least call him in for questioning at some point? And if it was him, surely, in that situation, it would be difficult to get away without leaving any evidence?
Answer: Although there is no definitive proof, I believe the killer to be Atwood's henchman. During the trip scene we see him following Eddie and the Blonde to their room and although it comes off as an illusion there's no reason it cannot be real. This alone is not enough to say for certain but the main reason I point to the henchman is because of how the story plays out following the murder. Eddie is by an eyewitness (probably someone working for Atwood if not the actual killer) who tells the police about him and as a result he is called into questioning. Because of the inquiry Eddie hires "the best lawyer in the city" who as we know is under Atwood's thumb. It is during this line of questioning the lawyer is able to go into Eddie's jacket and steal his NZT. None of these things would have happened had the Blonde never been killed.
Answer: There was no mention of physical evidence like hairs or fibres, the only evidence the police had was an eye-witness placing Eddie at the scene at the time the murder occurred; the eye-witness failed to I.D. Eddie in the line-up he was called to at the police station so Eddie was released, as the police had no case.
Answer: It was mentioned that the room was wiped clean after the murder. It was probably Atwood who set it all up because he was on NZT and needed some more.
Answer: Did you watch the movie? Lol... Eddie was called in and questioned about the murder. He was able to beat the case because the eyewitness couldn't pick him out of a line-up. Remember, his lawyer arranged to have a line-up full of men that looked just like Eddie.
The point of a line-up is to make everyone look similar to the actual suspect. So, the lawyer didn't do anything shady, and it would have been the police's job to have similar-looking people. A line-up of a mix of people is kind of a movie/TV trope, and the film implying the lawyer rigged the lineup fits into that trope.
15th Nov 2020
The Longest Yard (1974)
Other mistake: At the start when Crewe's girlfriend says "don't you take my Maserati" Crewe says he has earned it. He then goes out and gets in a Citroen, not a Maserati. Also, a Citroen front license plate appears on the car shortly afterwards which wasn't there before. (00:03:57)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The Citroen SM model has a Maserati engine.
That doesn't make it a Maserati. Citroën bought Maserati in 1968, but their badge determined the brand, not what engine was in it. A lot of car companies are owned by other car companies to have multiple divisions in their lineup. If someone has a Toyota and called it a Lexus, they'd be wrong, just like it's wrong in this case.
9th Oct 2023
They Live (1988)
Factual error: Throughout the movie, whenever the sunglasses/contacts are worn, both visual and audible hidden subliminal messages are seen and heard. Such as the hidden "obey" message flashing, or the hidden traffic siren repeating "sleep," etc. The problem is that the glasses/contacts only help the eyes, not the ears. So the hidden audio shouldn't be heard any differently or clearer than it is with them off.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The glasses/contacts are made of a material that blocks the alien signal, hence why wearing them too long makes you feel sick since it messes with the brain. That would allow you to hear the audio as well.
Not true. Yes, the glasses would help you to be aware that the sounds existed; however, the error is that the sounds become louder. Take the traffic signal device. If it is saying "sleep sleep" as a subliminal message outside normal human hearing, wearing the glasses won't change the volume of the subliminal "sleep message" from "sleeeep" to "SLEEEP". Unless you're saying the sounds were always at normal human hearing levels.
That's exactly what was happening. There's a difference between frequency and volume. A sound can have a frequency outside normal human perception and still be loud. For example, a dog whistle is loud enough to hear, but not in a frequency most humans can hear. The plot of the film seems to be that the frequency isn't picked up by the conscious mind, but by the subconscious mind, much like the visual images.
I just assumed, as is the case with most subliminal audio, that the sound messages were a case of low volume and not frequency. That is, sounds that were just below normal hearing volume. That is barely hearable to the average person volume-wise, but they heard enough for the brain to perceive them and process the information subconsciously. Unfortunately, I can only speculate which it is without an absolute answer, so I can't argue the correction really.
7th Aug 2023
Oppenheimer (2023)
Factual error: No one would have used the phrase "black hole" in 1939. The term "black hole" was first used in 1963 in "Life" and "Science News" and by Ann Ewing in an article in January of 1964. Princeton physicist John Wheeler popularised the term.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Nobody uses the term "black hole" in the movie, only the term "dark star". Oppenheimer once refers to it as a hole in space, but not a black hole.
When Oppenheimer walks into the room of cheering people (after he says he'll be in Pasadena), someone says "paper on black holes, it's in!"
Ah, yes, I see. I wonder, though, if it's really that unlikely someone would call it a black hole before it was popularized? It is essentially what they are. Certainly, it's possible somebody before 1963 called it that without it ending up in a paper. Just a coincidence, then.
4th Oct 2023
Rocky V (1990)
Plot hole: The events of Rocky V take place immediately after the conclusion of Rocky IV. With that being said, Paulie is being blamed for signing over the family's fortune to their crooked account. But how could that have been possible when the entire family, except for their son, was in Russia training Rocky for the fight with Drago?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Because Paulie had signed over power of attorney to the accountant six years prior, the accountant had squandered the money and failed to pay Rocky's taxes all that time. It wasn't something Paulie was supposed to have done while he was in Russia.
That still would not have been correct, and the studios messed up on that particular part because 6 years prior to Rocky IV in 1985, the events of 1979's Rocky II happened. In this film, Rocky was broke and in desperate need of money. He had blown all of the money from his first fight with Apollo, lost his job at the meat slaughterhouse, and was broke. So tell me, during that time, how could Paulie have signed anything over to anyone? Rocky did not have millions at that time.
While Rocky II came out in 1979, it was set in 1976 - 10 months after the fight with Apollo.
18th Sep 2023
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
The Maternal Congruence - S3-E11
Corrected entry: Sheldon tells Leonard and Penny that he had inflatable lawn decorations as a child (in the late 80s/early 90s). Those weren't invented until 2001.
Correction: Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. I had inflatable decorations back in the 90s, and there were absolutely inflatable lawn decorations in the 80s. You can still buy some inflatable 80s decoration secondhand on sites like eBay. "Modern" inflatables like balloons date back 200 years, and the air-inflation process had been used prior to that even. I can only presume you're referring to the more current in-vogue inflatables that use fans... but even those existed before 2001, albeit they weren't as widely used. (Ex. The StarLab inflatable planetarium that many schoolchildren still experience to this day uses the same basic fan system and was invented in the 1970's.)
I researched my answer. Can you provide more info on yours?
How could you have possibly done research on inflatables and come to the conclusion that inflatable decorations were invented in 2001? My info is that I literally owned some, and you can still find plenty second-hand online. Go to Etsy and search "vintage inflatable" and there are currently multiple inflatable decorations that date from the 80s and earlier that people are selling secondhand.
Correction: He says he had an inflatable Santa Claus, but nothing to suggest it was an "air blown" version that you seem to be talking about.
Inflatable means you blow air into it.
Yes, but it doesn't mean to blow air into constantly with a portable fan. That's why kids before 2001 had beach balls and other inflatable pool toys. What you seem to be describing or alluding to are called "Gemmy Airblown Inflatables," introduced in 2001.
Very true, Bishop. And even then... the technology Gemmy Airblown Inflatables use existed long before 2001. As I said in my response, it's the same basic tech used for things like inflatable planetariums. I'm confused as to what MovieFan612 is getting at. They seem to be indicating that inflatable decorations in general didn't exist before 2001... which is just factually wrong.
8th Jan 2021
The Flash (2014)
Continuity mistake: When Joe and Iris are going to talk to Matthew Kim, Iris is already wearing the suit that Cisco later makes for her, she just wears it open the first time and closed the second time. (00:13:41 - 00:29:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She is wearing the jacket when speaking with Matthew Kim because it is her jacket. When Cisco has her new outfit in the suit bag, he said something to the effect of "I had to make do," meaning that it was short notice and he could not make her a suit like he did for other speedsters. She is essentially wearing regular clothes with a mask, and her jacket was part of that outfit. Quite frankly, all the clothes could have been hers, but we know the jacket is.
Not only that, but in the scene before, we see the jacket hanging over her chair. So just something she wore that day.
30th Apr 2003
Forrest Gump (1994)
Factual error: In the scene where Forrest Gump is wheeling Lt. Dan across a street between a bunch of taxis, the car they go behind is a 1973 Chevrolet Caprice (see the tail lights). However, several scenes later we know the year is 1971 because it is New Year's Eve 1971 because we see the TV flash 1972 as the year changes. (01:13:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: 1971 to 1976 was the second generation of these automobiles, with production of these models beginning in mid-1970. This car would absolutely have existed at the time depicted in the movie.
27th Aug 2001
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Continuity mistake: When Scarecrow, Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion are marching into the Wicked Witch's castle after taking the guards' uniforms, all three of them are shown holding the same types of spears as the guards, so when they go rescue Dorothy out of the locked room and Tin Man chops through the door with his axe, where did the axe come from? (01:22:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I'm 63 years old and still watch The Wizard of Oz. If I remember correctly, the axe was taken off a nearby wall.
There is no scene of him taking the axe off the wall, nor is there any axe seen on any of the walls. Plus, it's the same axe he had the whole time. But the 3 also take off their coats/disguises while the camera is on Dorothy and it's possible he had the axe tucked away in the coat.
In the books, the Tin Man always has his axe and he uses it often. Perhaps it is the same in the movie.
25th May 2006
Children of the Corn (1984)
Continuity mistake: When Joseph stumbles into the road, Burt hits him with his car. In the initial shot we see that Joseph's body had landed in the middle of the road on a yellow line. In a following shot, his body is now seen to be by the side of the road. (00:15:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He didn't stumble. He was standing.
This isn't a valid correction. Make a word change if you think it needs to be more specific, and you can stumble and still be standing.
19th Jul 2022
Pixels (2015)
Continuity mistake: When playing Donkey Kong in the competition, Cooper finishes Level 22 by jumping over the last piece holding the Ape up and then it says "GAME OVER," when he should go to the next level.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
11th Sep 2007
Entourage (2004)
Other mistake: Twelve seconds into the intro, the shot of the store with the name Adrian Grenier above it is mirrored. Notice the reversed lettering in the signs. (00:00:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Does something in the intro count as a mistake? Even still, the signs could be facing the inside of the store on purpose, making it look like a reverse image from the outside. Just to the right of the store with Adrian Grenier's name on it, we see a sign for Pizza displayed correctly.
I would say, for this type of intro, it should be considered a mistake. I'd call it an "other mistake" as it wasn't done deliberately. There's no way the reversed imaged signs point into the store. The photo store has a solid sign that's not inward facing, with the word "Kodak" flipped. The neon signs facing outwards are also flipped. And the pizza signs are also incorrect. The p and z's are flipped as well.
You're absolutely correct, I do see the reverse print on the photo store. Oddly enough, one of the pizza signs is displayed correctly, however.
16th Aug 2023
The Longest Day (1962)
Factual error: All throughout the movie, whenever some German officer, speaking German, wants someone to shoot off some artillery piece, he screams, "FIRE!" German words for shoot include schießen, drehen, trieb, aufnehmen, abschießen, erlegen, spross, jagen, and ballern, but certainly not "fire".
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: But they don't say "shoot," they say "feuer," which is German for "fire." This is the accurate word for the German command to firing a weapon. Btw, most of the words you take as an example don't mean "to shoot," but are only associated with shooting. Like "jagen," which is German for "hunting."
Nay - They are screaming "FIRE!" They aren't saying feuer. It probably is indeed illegal to yell "Feuer!" in a German crowded theatre. Lol. My original assertion of a mistake in this movie was because they go to great lengths to specifically always be having the Germans speaking German with subtitles - to not be one of these war movies where all the German officers are speaking English (usually in a refined British accent for some reason - lol) - and I maintain they dropped that in this case and went for the English word - and it's a mistake - Whatever the word feuer means, even if it does, or CAN mean SHOOT!, they CLEARLY (and multiple times throughout all the battle scenes) are screaming the English word "fire," not the German word FEUER. The two words may be close, but they do not sound the same. Watch the movie and I'm sure you will hear what I'm saying. You will hear "FIE ur," not "few ERR." There is no long 'I' sound in feuer.
You are entitled to your opinion, whether you hear "fire" or "feuer," but I hear them say "feuer" enough (Omaha beach scene). About everything else you say, I think the problem is easy - you don't understand the German language. Now, I'm not a native German speaker, but my knowledge of German is adequate enough to know that the German word for firing a weapon is "feuer." I'm also pretty sure the English word "fire" means "flames" as well, so your logic is flawed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO1Em0NCCzE. At the 2:03 timestamp, you can hear a German say "feuer" to firing a weapon.
Ok, I just went there and no one says anything at 2:03. (If you mean two minutes and three seconds into the movie). Maybe you meant two hours and three minutes? Gimme a day or so to watch the whole movie again, and I will mark every time I think they say "feuer" and every time they say "fire." If I'd heard "FEW AIR," I wouldn't have asserted that there was any mistake. I would have assumed that was German. I hear some actor from New Jersey screaming "FIE UR" every time - lol.
I gave a link to a YouTube video of Bundeswehr soldiers training. In the video, at 2:03, you hear a German say "feuer" when ordering to fire the artillery. Just to prove, Germans say "feuer" when firing weapons. Plus an idea of how they pronounce it.
Yes, what happened is, I copied and pasted that link - but I included the period you put at the end - and that just brings up Youtube movies, so I thought you meant for me to go to The Longest Day movie - lol. My bad. Again, I acknowledge that there is no way to account for accents and dialects - you made a good point - I just always hear what sounded like some actor from New Jersey saying FIE URR! - (Or should I say JOIZEE) - lol.
Maybe that's one time they did it the correct way - there are more than one times throughout the movie where you hear "FIRE" and not "FEUER" - they are not pronounced the same.
Ok - I am GIVING you the understanding that both English and German have a word that means both flames and shooting. I will acknowledge that. But you are not understanding my logic. I repeat: Irrespective of whether any German officer ever screamed "feuer" to mean "shoot", you will, beyond doubt, hear that very strong, long 'I' sound every time they scream the word. Anyone who is reading this is invited to watch the movie, and the word FIRE, pronounced "fie ur" with the long 'I' sound, will be heard at least two or three times - never "few air." Feuer is, (supposed to be), pronounced "few air." But, then, what does "supposed to" really mean, when it comes to any language? I guess differences in accents have to be considered. I mean, how many English words sound different than they seem to be spelled? - tons.
Think logically about the fact that these actors in the movie are actual Germans, and they are supposed to speak German in the movie. So, absolutely no reason for them to say "fire." They can pronounce it however they want; they mean to say "feuer" and not "fire."
Yes, but I hear FIRE, not Feuer. But then, a lot of British people pronounce Lia fail as LAYAFOIL, so I will admit that there may be no way to prove my theory that the makers of this movie abandoned their attempt to stick with German and went with the English word FIRE in this one instance.
I agree, it's more likely they're saying "Feuer." Even Google Translate says "fire at will" translates to "Feuer frei." But the pronunciation is closer to "fire" than what you're suggesting. You seem to be implying "feuer" is pronounced more like "führer."
Yes, a German might be saying "feuer" some time in some actual war, but in this movie, you will hear "fire" every time. Go watch the movie and you will definitely hear that long 'I' sound. Ultimately, this may be impossible to totally resolve, as I guess there may be no way to determine how different Germans with different accents might pronounce something. I hear the dude from New Jersey saying FIE UR! lol.
16th Aug 2023
A Man Called Otto (2022)
Continuity mistake: Near the end of the movie, when Otto is holding the baby, the baby's hat is on and off in between shots. (01:48:48)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
This mistake seems to be taken from IMDB and reworded without verifying its veracity. What's funny is, there is a shot of the baby without the hat on when Marisol is holding him. When Otto is showing the crib and she says, "I love it."
18th Apr 2002
Cruel Intentions (1999)
Factual error: During one scene where Ronald is giving lessons, he tells Cecile to play a G major scale. After he says this, he adds, "Remember the third note, it's sharp." In a G major scale the third isn't sharp. The seventh is. (00:18:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When playing the cello, there can either be one finger space between the two notes or two. The first G would be just the G string with no fingers. The second note would be A, which means just putting a finger in the correct space on the string. The third note is B. The third note would use the third finger. The alternative, which would be wrong, would be to use the second finger. What Ronald is saying is, rather than use the second finger, you should use the third finger.
This correction seems to validate the mistake. There's nothing in the quote to indicate he's talking about finger positioning, you're not playing a sharp on the 3rd note.
21st Oct 2018
First Man (2018)
Factual error: When Neil Armstrong drops the bracelet into the crater he lets it drop straight down. Yet the bracelet appears to fall a long way, implying a very sheer cliff, close to 90°. This is not natural for a lunar crater, as the maximum steepness of crater wall is determined by the material's angle of repose (how steep before it avalanches) which has typically been observed to be approximately 45° for lunar regolith.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: "Not natural" and "typically" don't mean it's impossible. It's unlikely, perhaps, but unless it can be proven to be impossible, it can't be said to be a factual error.
"Not natural" in this sentence means not found in nature. Thus, it is impossible. Typical just means most often or, on average, but certain ranges can be impossible. If a high school does not allow students over the age of 25 to be enrolled, you could say the average age of a senior is around 17, but it could never be over 25. If you want to correct the mistake as being factually possible, you have to provide evidence or proof.
8th Dec 2020
Friday the 13th (2009)
Trivia: According to Michael Bay, Travis Van Winkle's Trent is the exact same Trent from the Transformers movie, meaning that both movies take place in the same universe.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This info has been proven to be wrong. In Transformers, Travis Van Winkle plays Trent DeMarco, while here he plays Trent Sutton.
While I don't think Michael Bay ever directly said they exist in the same universe (if he did, I can't find it, so a link to him saying it should be provided). However, the films, as is, never reveal Trent's last name. For Friday the 13th, "Sutton" comes from a deleted scene, and "DeMarco" comes from the novelization of the "Transformers" film.
To add, the trivia never stated what Trent's last name was. Only that they were the same character.
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 think Lisa and Bart are actually referring to Generation X and early Millennials. People of these ages are also known as "the MTV Generation." They dealt with the political, social, and economic issues that were happening in the '80s and '90s. Many were also "latchkey kids" who had to be independent from an early age. They are known for being apathetic or even cynical, after growing up the way they did.