20th Mar 2018
We'll Always Have Paris - S1-E24
Character mistake: When Data is on the planet, about to drop the material into the temporal rift, one of the three Datas asks which one of them should do it. The middle Data replies, "Me. It's me." Data is meant to be incapable of using a contraction.
Suggested correction: That character trait was not established until season 2. Data uses contractions multiple times in the first season.
While it was explicitly expressed in season 2 that Data can not use contractions, the fact that they did established this character trait means it could be a valid mistake since the trait is meant to show Data could never use contractions since his creation, not that he suddenly developed it some 30-odd years later. Although it would probably be best to submit it as a mistake in season 2 when it's mentioned that it contradicts what was established or at least make one character mistake for "all of season 1" than list every individual time it happened.
9th Dec 2016
Other mistake: After greeting Crusher, Data explains where Picard is. Problem is he uses the contraction "he's" instead of "he is." Data is supposed to be incapable of this.
Suggested correction: This is only a mistake if the series is taken as a whole. At this point in the series, that particular trait wasn't part of the character. Data uses contractions multiple times in the first season, as the trait was added later.
While it was explicitly expressed in season 2 that Data can not use contractions, the fact that they did established this character trait means it could be a valid mistake since the trait is meant to show Data could never use contractions since his creation, not that he suddenly developed it some 30-odd years later. Although it would probably be best to submit it as a mistake in season 2 when it's mentioned that it contradicts what was established or at least make one character mistake for "all of season 1" than list every individual time it happened.
3rd Feb 2016
Character mistake: Chief Brody and Hooper go to the wharf to dissect a large tiger shark and examine the contents of its stomach. Finding nothing unusual, Hooper recommends they go offshore that night to search for the real killer shark because "he's a night feeder." Coming from a marine biologist, that remark really makes no sense. Hooper knew that, in addition to eating Chrissie the midnight swimmer, the shark also ate Pippin (the black Labrador retriever) and the Kintner boy in the middle of the day at a public beach. Based on all available evidence, the shark was no more likely to feed at night than in broad daylight.
Suggested correction: The statement is correct, the shark was a night feeder, as opposed to just being a day feeder, meaning the shark will likely be hunting at night.
Again, given all the evidence (including the daytime attacks), Hooper had no more reason to suspect the shark was a night feeder than a day feeder.
Except that's not what the conversation was about, he wasn't speculating on whether the shark was more likely to attack during the day or the night. He simply states they should go out at night to find the real shark responsible for the attacks because that shark will be feeding at night as well (and by going out at night they wouldn't have to face the daytime crowd). If he made an statement such as "the shark isn't a day feeder" or "the shark is strictly a night feeder", those statements could be considered mistakes.
Even when Chrissie was killed at night and two men later on in the movie tried to catch the shark for the reward...at night?
5th Apr 2019
Other mistake: Maddie and her father can control only glass, but when at the Talon he uses his powers to pull the diamonds out of the stained glass. Diamonds aren't glass.
Suggested correction: This may not necessarily be true by the way their powers work. Remember, diamonds are a form of rock that are clear. Glass is made from melted sand, which is a ground up type of rock that becomes clear. The similarities between diamonds and glass are enough that it is possible they could still do this.
Diamonds are compressed carbon, not a form of rock. Glass is melted silicon. They're both clear materials, that doesn't mean they're equivalent, otherwise they'd be able to control clear plastic or any number of other things too.
If more explanations of their powers were discussed in the show, one might be able to conclude they do or do not have power over diamonds. However, the script only states they have power over glass, they show no propensity for power over sand itself, or other rocks and minerals. As scripted, this remains as error as it go against what is established.
13th Dec 2018
Trivia: Alvy's sneezing into the cocaine was an unscripted accident.
Suggested correction: He turns the box for maximum effect.
This correction makes no sense in attempting to invalidate the trivia. If this meant to add to the trivia, create a new trivia entry.
At a guess their point is that by turning the box to increase the effect, it shows it wasn't an accident, but intentional.
27th Jun 2016
From what I vaguely remember it's about a woman in a fancy big house. There is a party going on. This guy is being nice to her and they are flirting. She says she has to go somewhere. He begs her to stay with him - she promises to come back, then she goes off, races back, and when she comes back the house is old and some person tells her no one lived there for over 100 years. I think if she had stayed the spell would have been broken. If someone has any ideas please put me out of my misery.
Chosen answer: It sounds like you're thinking of "Brigadoon". A Scottish village is under a spell where it only appears for one day every 100 years (which was done to preserve the way of life of the villagers.) When two men find it, one falls in love with a woman villager and if she were to leave the village, the spell would be broken and the village of Brigadoon would disappear forever, along with everyone in it (if he stayed he'd have to leave the real world behind). There's been a lot of adaptations of the story, so not sure which version you saw. Two versions I know of are a 1954 film and a 1966 TV movie.
The movie described in the question is not "Brigadoon." For one, the entire village disappeared and there was no old house with someone in it that remained in the intervening 100 years. Also, in Brigadoon, it was the man who came upon the village, not the girl.
Possible, but I've noticed when people only have a vague memory of things, they confuse what they saw with another film or mix up some points. The key points of 1 day and 100 years and a broken spell pointed to "Brigadoon." But there's been adaptations of the film that the person might have seen which may have alternate minor plots that I'm not familiar with, which I mention so the person could have a reference to look for in case I was wrong in guessing what they saw. I've noticed with these general questions that the original posters sometimes reply if the suggest film is not what they were thinking of.
13th Nov 2018
Question: Is there anything to suggest that someone couldn't leave the grail in the cave and come back every 50 years or so to "top off" their immortality?
Answer: It doesn't appear to work that way. The power of the grail heals Henry's gunshot wound instantly and it keeps the knight looking about 80 years old. However, there is nothing in the film to suggest that simply drinking from the grail and leaving the cave actually extends your life. In fact, Henry drank from the grail and died a natural death a relatively short time later in between this film and the next.
Actually it is stated that Henry Jones Sr. died either in 1951 or 1956. So either at the age of 79 or 85 and at least 13 years after the events of the Last Crusade movie. Whilst this is not an extremely old age, there is no reason to think his life wasn't extended by the grail. Indiana himself got to a high age himself, having drunk from the grail.
I don't think the series is implying that either Jones man lived a long life due to the grail. In fact it would seem to go against the irony of the grail as presented: that it does give you eternal life but you are confined to that cave to enjoy the benefits. Maybe if they had said Henry Jones died at the age of 120 or something out of the ordinary, but they specifically state he dies at a perfectly normal, non magical age.
Well it's never stated that it gives eternal life only to the person staying in the cave either. That's what the question is about. If the healing properties of the grail work on someone who leaves the cave, there is no reason to think their life isn't extended (technically it already was in the case of Henry Jones Sr.) as well. It is possible though, since the knight looked pretty old, that the grail only heals, and that healing extends life but one has to drink from the cup frequently (like every day) in order to stay alive, whilst still getting older.
The knight does say that the grail cannot leave the seal, which is the price of immortality. He is implying that in order to reap the benefits of eternal life you must stay in the cave. The way it seems to work is that in order to extend your life in any meaningful way, you must drink from the grail often. Just leaving and coming back whenever you need a jolt would effectively make the rule about not taking the grail out of the cave meaningless. How often you need to drink is of course not specified. In order for the film's ironic message about the grail to make any kind of sense, you would need to drink from the grail so often you would effectively be stuck in the cave. Possibly drinking from it every day. In which case, like the knight you would just live at the cave and never leave. The knight's brothers both left 150 years after finding the grail, but one of them died shortly after leaving, never making it out of the desert. So with regards to the original question: "can you just come back every 50 years or so?"; it would make the most sense based on what we see in the movie, what we know about how long Henry Jones Sr. Lived, what we know about the knights and how long they lived, and the message the movie is saying about the irony of the grail that the answer to that particular question is "No."
I wonder if someone were to bring a large storage vessel to the cave, and fill it using the Grail, if they could then take that water with them and drink it later... Man, the scientist in me really wants to resolve this.
Drinking from the grail is not the same as pouring water out of it into another vessel. Drinking from the grail is symbolic and there is no real power that it bestows upon the water in it. However, if the grail was able to pass the properties to another vessel, one would have to assume the temple would collapse on itself when attempting to take the secondary vessel out.
Answer: It's stated by the ancient knight that the Grail's powers do not extend into the outside world. He himself was immortal only because he remained at the site, drinking the water, for hundreds of years. Henry Senior was instantly healed on-site, but he and Indy continued to age normally once they left the site.
Then why didn't Henry's wound return when he left? Their healing extended their lives. It got rid of any bad cells, to go scientific.
Because cell deterioration due to aging happens spontaneously, i.e. you've got to keep removing the bad cells. Bullet wounds are not spontaneous...once it's gone, it's gone.
Why would his wound return? He was instantly healed. From that point forward he was in normal health, even after crossing the seal. Indy actually drank from the Grail, which meant he was immortal for a few minutes, but his immortality did not follow him beyond the seal.
It's the difference between believing the power of immortality comes from the cup or staying in the cave. The knight was immortal because he kept drinking from the cup, not because he stayed in the cave. The cup has healing powers, and simply growing old is not the reason for death, regenerating cells will keep you alive, so if the cup regenerates cells, you are immortal from drinking from it, as long as you do it regularly. That's how the knight has done it and why he looks old and is frail. Going outside doesn't negate the powers of the cup, or Henry's wound would have returned. Therefor, going back often to drink from the cup will extend your life. It will cure you from any ailments that accompany old age like heart disease, cancer and brain degeneration.
The Grail Knight plainly says: "You have chosen...wisely. But, beware: the Grail cannot pass beyond the Great Seal, for that is the boundary, and the price, of immortality." Therefore, you remain immortal as long as you don't cross the seal. If you are healed instantly inside the boundary of the Great Seal, then you are healed. Period. It's not just a magic bandaid that disappears if you cross the seal.
27th Sep 2004
Factual error: When they are at Aunt Meg's the first time, they get word that a tornado has been spotted and somehow they already know its rating. Tornadoes get their ratings from the amount of damage they do. This is determined after the tornado is gone.
Suggested correction: The scale back then was based on the size of the tornado, it's only more recently it is based on damage. So during the time of the movie, the scale was being used correctly for size not damage.
The Fujita scale was introduced in 1971 and was in use during the 90's when this film came out. The Fujita scale measured the damage caused by a tornado to man-made structures after ground or aerial surveys, it was not a measurement of tornado size (an F5 tornado is a tornado that's rated on the Fujita scale). It is true the Fujita scale was replaced by the enhanced Fujita scale in 2007, but that was only to align the ratings to the damage better, it did not change rating tornadoes from size to destructive powers.
13th Jan 2003
Factual error: When Professor Dent tries to shoot Bond at Miss Taro's and Bond is waiting for him in the darkened room, the 'Walther PPK' that Bond is busily screwing the silencer onto, at the beginning of the scene, does not have an external hammer, and is therefore not a Walther at all. It's a Browning 1910 .32 calibre. (00:55:10 - 00:56:35)
Suggested correction: Correct to say it's not a PPK, but it's not a Browning either - in a close up one can see the Beretta logo on the grip.
First off, it is certainly not a Beretta. That's not the Beretta logo (3 arrows), but it's the Fabrique Nationale logo (stylized FN). Plus the Beretta has an external hammer and the gun in question does not. It is indeed a Browning 1910 (which is manufactured by Fabrique Nationale. Finally, it is not necessary to submit a correction for mistakes that are accurate but have one or two words wrong (not that this mistake had any words wrong).
23rd Aug 2016
Question: What is the make and model of the motorcycle that Johnny Blaze rides?
Answer: If you're talking about during his performances, it's a 2000 Buell X1 Lightning. He's also seen on a Harley-Davidson Sportster, I believe, when jumping through the ring of fire. If you're talking about his other bike, it's a Harley-Davidson Panhead.
Sorry. I should have been more specific as I'm not familiar with motorcycles. The one that turns into the HellCycle.
The HD Panhead is what turns into the Hell Cycle. But the Hell Cycle itself was a custom made piece, built from the ground up, but modeled after the Panhead. So there's no specific make and model, that I know of, for the custom made Hell Cycle itself.
Thank you.
27th Aug 2001
Corrected entry: After Dorian absorbs the bullets that Nico shot at him, he opens his mouth and we can see that the bullets have their shells again instead of just the projectiles.
Correction: This falls under the "cartoon law" category that governs most other things that happen in this movie. Dorian's imagination allowed the bullets to be fired in whatever manner he wishes.
This most likely shouldn't be corrected under the blanket statement that anything can happen. The bullets he fires back represent the bullets that were fired at him and thus shouldn't have their casings (shells). There's no need for him to "imagine" the bullets are back in their casings since he doesn't need the primer and gunpowder to "fire" them (firing bullets without gunpowder, etc. would be an example of "cartoon law" and not a valid mistake since it's already impossible to fire intact ammunition from ones mouth.) Even in the realm of fantasy, there are valid mistakes like these (due to filming limitations, bad writing, etc). It all has to do with intent of the writers or the scene (which is why mistakes are often debated about). Here, the intent is to fire back used bullets, not create new ones. Otherwise, we would see Dorian just create more deadly ammunition.
By wearing the mask Dorian has the ability to create new ones.
So what's the point of him shooting them out of his mouth and not a gun he created? The scene is meant to show he is spitting out the bullets that were fired at him, not him creating new ammunition in his mouth.
Correction: The mask gives its wearer unlimited power so that not only was he able to recreate the bullets but, also fire off as many as necessary.
22nd Oct 2002
Other mistake: In the scene when Mark Ratner asks for Stacy's phone number, there is a customer paying for a slice of pizza. Stacy tells the customer to pay $1.10. The customer gives her a dollar and change. She then gives him five cents back. The only way this could be right is if the customer gave her $1.15. If he could do that, why not the exact $1.10?
Suggested correction: In this scene, when Stacy says "$1.10, and you get 5 cents back", the price is actually $1.05 and the customer gives her $1.10 and she gives him his change, which would be 5 cents. When she says "$1.10", she was only confirming the amount the customer gave to her, not how much she wanted from him.
Pause the movie. The total on the register is $1.10 then it shows .05 change. The guy paid $1.15.
Who does that? - who pays an extra nickel just to get the same nickel back? Normally when a person overpays (and this is "normally") the cashier usually says "oops - you gave me too much."
Suggested correction: She types in what the customer gives her and the register gives the change amount back. The total bill was 1.05, not 1.10.
The register show $1.10 (as well as $0.05) before he gives her any money.
3rd Sep 2018
Question: There is something I don't get about the bad guys. Why would they kidnap a teenage boy?
Answer: If you're talking about why they kidnapped Zack, Zack is the younger brother of Jake. Jake still owed Johnny money, but when Johnny and his gang go look for Jake, they can't find him. They see Zack and kidnap him, essentially for ransom, until Jake fully pays Johnny back.
It's also important to remember that this is a film based on true events, the kidnapping and murder of Nicolas Markowitz. All the names in the film have been changed.
Why did they murder Nick?
Although this should be posted as a different question, in real life, Jesse (the one Nick's brother owed money to) had decided to let Nick go home. However, Jesse found out what kind of legal consequences he'd face for kidnapping Nick and decided to have Nick killed instead (obviously thinking he could get away with murder and deny any kidnapping allegations).
20th Feb 2013
Question: Why does Guinan have an intense hatred for Q?
Answer: He brought the Borg to the Alpha Quadrant and showed them that it was full of worlds waiting to be assimilated. Guinan's homeworld was their first stop, and they assimilated everyone and took over the planet, leaving The Survivors of her race without a home. Q is ultimately responsible for that.
By the time Q takes the Enterprise to meet the Borg, Guinan already knew who they were and they had already destroyed her world. Therefore the above answer can not be right. I believe Guinan is much more than she appears, and her people have had encounters with the Q in the past. It is these interactions, that obviously were not pleasant, that fuels her distrust.
That's what the above answer is saying. Q brought the Borg to the Alpha Quadrant (not Earth) and the Borg destroyed Guinan's home world in the late 2200's, which is why she hates Q. Although she met Q in 2160 and they both saw each other as enemies right away.
17th Nov 2014
Question: Is there an alternate ending? Did Ving Rhames ever wear a sweater in the last scene?
Answer: I have repeatedly told people he wore a sweater. There has to be one, more original, that has him in a sweater. I remember almost like a Easter yellow.
It should be noted Rhames does wear what looks like a yellow sweater in "Pulp Fiction." Although I wouldn't call it Easter Yellow.
I saw Ving Rhames in a navy crewneck sweater in the closing shots of this film.
I also can swear I saw an ending with Ving Rhames wearing a sweater. This would be in keeping with Klein asking him earlier in the film if he ever wears sweaters.
Answer: My wife and I also believe that Agent Duane Stevenson wore a sweater at the end of the movie on the VHS version. The DVD version switched Duane with suit, white shirt and tie - no sweater.
Answer: I saw Ving Rhames in a navy crewneck sweater at the end of movie shot.
15th Feb 2017
Stupidity: When a cop goes to Kevin's house after being requested by police, he simply knocks on the door and after a few seconds walks away assuming no ones home. Had he actually bothered to announce himself as a cop, Kevin would have opened the door and he would have been found safe.
Suggested correction: Some people just aren't good at their job or are too lazy. The cop didn't like the idea of being sent on a possible fake call and didn't put in the extra effort. Or he was simply waiting for someone to ask who it was before identifying himself. Plus the cop would have had no idea Kevin was hiding and not answering the door because he was scared nor that saying he was the police would get him to answer the door, he could have simply thought a kid left alone would answer the door to anyone.
Even if he thought it was a fake call, he still should have identified himself. By doing this, he could have confirmed that Kevin was indeed left alone.
And the script could have been written a 100 different ways to prevent Kevin from being left home alone, but that doesn't mean there's a plot hole or movie mistake.
Creating series of silly explanations for obvious mistakes/plotholes never resolves them. He should have identified himself regardless of the circumstances.
Exactly.
Perhaps the officer's failure to identify himself (as well as other deficiencies in the way he responded to the call) would more accurately be classified as a "character mistake"? This may result in fewer criticisms (corrections) while not negating the "stupidity."
Maybe it should be. Because he acted much too unprofessionally for a police officer.
12th May 2010
Corrected entry: The dragon on the girl's face moves from one side to the other in a closeup, when the hitman is questioning her toward the begining of the movie.
Correction: Copy from another correction: It doesn't change sides. The camera view switches from a direct shot of her face, to a shot of a reflection of her face, which of course is a mirror image.
Correction: The tattoo does change sides on her face. It is supposed to be on the left side. Filming a shot in a reflection still doesn't change a tattoo from a left cheek to a right cheek.
The correction is accurate. The tattoo never changes from being on her left cheek. There is a camera shot of her in the mirror in which the tattoo appears on the right side, but because it's her reflection, it's still her left cheek. You can tell because the tattoo is still on the opposite side of the red streak in her hair rather than on the same side.
6th Aug 2018
Corrected entry: The opening title sequence of the film states that LA is "The Bank Robbery Capital of the World", a title it was given in 1963 for a history of infamous bank heists. The titles state that the city has a bank robbery about every 48 minutes. However only in its worst year in 1992 did it even come close to this, with it having 1 robbery every 66 minutes - 2,641 robberies in a seven-county region. (00:00:55)
Correction: Actually the numbers are pretty close to spot on if you figure that banks are only open about 8 hours a day (9a to 5p banker's hours), 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year minus holidays - figure 250 days as a round figure. 250 days x 8 hours per day x 60 minutes per hour = 120,000 minutes then divided by the 48 minutes quoted = about 2500 robberies per year, so not that far off really.
Robbery is the taking of property that involves person-to-person interaction with force, intimidation, or coercion. Burglary is breaking into a property with the intent to commit a theft, which does not involve person-to-person interaction. The statement would suggest banks are robbed during business hours (and burglarized when closed).
18th Jul 2017
Corrected entry: The British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon accident was erroneously characterized by environmental activists, by some U.S. politicians, by the press and by this film as the "worst" manmade oil spill in history. It was not. The Pemex Ixtoc 1 disaster off the Yucatan peninsula in 1979 was far worse, lasted much longer, and received almost zero press in the United States, even though it impacted virtually every coastline in the Gulf of Mexico for over a year. The Deepwater Horizon spill was hyped far above and beyond its comparatively minor environmental impact for purely political reasons (i.e., it was used to fuel opposition to offshore drilling).
Correction: It's hard to analyze "worst oil spill" because there's so many factors involved beyond how long it lasted, including death and injuries that occurred. However, the 1979 event resulted in 140 million gallons spilt and the Deepwater Horizon spilt an estimated 206 million gallons and resulted in 11 deaths.
The Ixtoc 1 is still considered the worst accidental oil spill in history. Ixtoc 1 remained uncapped and freely flowing for 9 months, releasing over 3.5 Million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. That's barrels, not gallons. The only larger spill was in Kuwait, when Iraqi forces deliberately destroyed oil wells in that country, releasing 8 Million barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf. However, Kuwait is considered an "intentional" oil spill, not accidental.
Ixtoc 1 is only considered one of the worst spills, but not the number 1 worst spill. Deepwater Horizon released 4.9 Million Barrels (which is 40% more oil) and resulted in 11 deaths. Yes, Ixtoc 1 took 9 months to cap where Deepwater Horizon took only 5 months to cap, but the amount split was still less than Deepwater Horizon.
But Ixtoc was not a deep well, and its spillage was carried across the entire surface of the Gulf of Mexico for 9 months. The Deepwater Horizon was an extremely deep well, and much of its spillage remained in vast pools on the ocean floor, where it gradually degraded (yes, under extreme pressure and low temperature, crude oil will sink rather than rise to the surface). That fact also makes it impossible to estimate the total spillage of Deepwater Horizon. Nonetheless, some Deepwater Horizon spillage did rise to the surface, but not even nearly as much as the Ixtoc 1. Deepwater Horizon's environmental impact was negligible compared to Ixtoc 1; but, as stated in the original post, Deepwater Horizon was hyped and sensationalized in the press for political purposes.
5th Feb 2019
Corrected entry: When Hope is fighting all the guys in the hotel, she has the device that lets her shrink and enlarge things (she enlarged a salt shaker to stop some guys). But she could have just shrunk all the guys rather than engage in hand-to-hand combat. At the very least she could have enlarged the chandelier so that it comes crashing down, flown to the tech she was buying, shrink it and fly away with it.
Correction: Shrinking a living mammal outside of a protective enclosure causes it to turn into goo. This is a major issue in the first Ant-Man film. Hope wanted to escape the men, not kill them. Clearly her tactics were sufficient to get out of the hotel, so it isn't a stupidity that she didn't use every gadget in her arsenal.
I'd hardly call a van a protective enclosure. But even if that's the case, the fact that she had the ability to avoid the fight in the first place and quickly escape and didn't is the stupidity. Just like the various stupidity entries of people having guns, tools, or keys and not using them.
I agree. Since she could shrink herself down, that's all she had to do.
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.