Rob245

Stupidity: When the parents knew Freddy was doing the killing then why didn't they watch him like a neighborhood watch so they could catch him trying it again, and thus avoid the legal technicality which threw out of the first case? It seems idiotic they broke the law to punish this lawbreaker.

Rob245

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: The parents believed Freddy would not face justice for his crimes. They were unwilling to allow him the opportunity to kill another child, and believing the justice system had failed them they took the law into their own hands. They completely got away with their vigilante justice. The only bad thing that happened was Freddy was brought back as a vengeful demon with superpowers. There is no way the parents could have known this would happen.

BaconIsMyBFF

It is still a stupidity. Even if they wanted him to suffer, they would try to avoid legal problems at all costs. It is good that they wanted to prevent him from killing another child but they still shouldn't act so hastily.

Stupidity entries are not meant to be stupid acts by characters. They're for minor plot holes. Without in-film evidence why the acts would be a plot hole, there is no stupidity mistake. And assuming what characters would or would not do does not make a valid mistake (not to mention revenge killings do happen in real life and in movies a lot).

Bishop73

No, it's not. What else were they supposed to do when he was caught and set free? It's still not their fault what happened next.

23rd Sep 2019

Charlie's Angels (1976)

Show generally

Question: Why in the world would they be comfortable working for a guy they never see? What made them not think he could be a crime boss who only had them take down former associates of his or use them to punish disobedient flunkies? Why does he even start this detective agency anyway?

Rob245

Answer: Charlie had testified against some very powerful men, and they were sent to jail based on the evidence he collected and his testimony. These men were released from prison on a technicality, so Charlie went into hiding. Charlie believed anyone who knew his whereabouts or had seen his face were also in jeopardy. So that's why he only calls on the telephone and they never get to see his face. The reason why these 3 women would work for a man they never met is because after they graduated from the police academy due to sexism they were only assigned duties like a crossing guard, filing, and answering the phone as police women.

Answer: There is no rational, realistic reason why Charlie is never seen or his real identity known or the reason given about why he started the agency. This is just a gimmick for a silly TV show that is meant to intrigue the audience and to keep them guessing about who he is.

raywest

Answer: It's never explained why Charlie is never seen, but there have been hints to his past as a cop. In one episode the Angels meet up with a bitter cop, who says, "When Charlie and I started out together, we were two rookie cops walking a beat. Twenty years later, he gets a Rolls-Royce and I get a bleeding ulcer."

Well do they ever say where he got his money? Stock market, inheritance, being a televangelist? Just kidding on the last one.

Rob245

Question: Why doesn't JJJ look like himself? True he's being played by JK Simmons but here he's bald without the trademark Jameson hairstyle.

Rob245

Answer: This is a different version of JJJ, not the one from the previous Spiderman movies, just like PP.

lionhead

Thanks folks though it's still weird looking since he should have his brush top look.

Rob245

I agree. But I'm already glad it's JK Simmons and not some other actor.

lionhead

Answer: The general movie-going audience doesn't always know the difference between MCU movies and movies that are based on Marvel properties made by other studios. Jameson's different look might have been done to avoid confusing fans into thinking that this iteration of Spider-Man is somehow connected to the Sam Raimi films.

Phaneron

23rd Sep 2019

Charlie's Angels (1976)

Answer: After going through a number of cast changes that failed to improve the show's slumping ratings, Tanya Roberts' character was added as "street-wise" former model. This was probably an effort to give a different and edgier character dimension to the show.

raywest

Continuity mistake: When KC Carr visits her mother, daughter, and son she's shown leaving in a taxi. Later she's shown driving her own car. That car seems to vanish when she joins another derby team who travels by bus. Surely the other derby teams she was on had buses.

Rob245

Mad as a Hatter - S1-E24

Continuity mistake: When Jervis Tetch is shown he's around 5'5 maybe with blue eyes and sandy white looking hair. Yet the day after his night out with Alice he's suddenly around Bruce Wayne's size with blond hair and his eyes are no longer blue.

Rob245

23rd Sep 2019

Hexed (1993)

Continuity mistake: When Matt's trying to call the police Hexina jumps on his back. He shoves her off onto the floor where she lands without hitting anything. Yet somehow she's got a broken nail which heals up after that closeup shot.

Rob245

23rd Sep 2019

Hexed (1993)

Continuity mistake: When Hexina chases Matt with the knife, she steps on the trigger of a camera, getting her picture taken. Simon sees this later and somehow it has Matt in the background despite him getting out of the way.

Rob245

23rd Sep 2019

Hexed (1993)

Character mistake: Detective Ferguson doesn't follow procedure and give Gloria her right to counsel prior to interrogation.

Rob245

23rd Sep 2019

Hexed (1993)

21st Sep 2019

Falling Down (1993)

Plot hole: Once or twice I can believe, but no cops catch up to him before the end, especially if all these people from the Korean grocer to the restaurant employees, customers saw and could describe him and he's walking?

Rob245

Continuity mistake: When the blonde wrestler falls out of the ring she hurts her right side, area above her hip, clutching it. When Larry Hagman tries touching it he touches the left side instead.

Rob245

Other mistake: When April views the tapes of her dad she's around 10-11 in them, but Sachs looks the same as he does in the film and this took place in the past perhaps 15 years, before current times.

Rob245

19th Sep 2019

Prom Night (1980)

Plot hole: If they've got a suspect for Robin's death why didn't they question him and make sure his alibi was true or not? It's never revealed, just them seemingly assuming this guy did it.

Rob245

19th Sep 2019

The Dark Knight (2008)

Factual error: When the lady wrestler falls out of the ring she lands on front row seats, pro wrestling doesn't allow chairs that close and there's no barricade there either.

Rob245

Stupidity: Unless Snow has solid proof like pictures or video why should Katniss believe her main enemy's word that it was Alma Coin, not him, who killed those kids?

Rob245

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: This is a question and not a stupidity. Katniss didn't just accept Snow at his word. Earlier Gale had mentioned an attack strategy to inflict maximum casualties on medics that matched the attack on the Capitol. Then Gale could not deny his part in Prim's death. All the evidence pointed to Coin being responsible as Snow suggested.

Bishop73

I appreciate responses here because it means you're reading stuff and that makes my day.

Rob245

18th Sep 2019

Chloe (2009)

Continuity mistake: Catherine goes home after sex with Chloe yet she later receives a picture on her phone from Chloe in which she's asleep afterwards. When did she fall asleep?

Rob245

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: There's no indication that she went straight home. Lots of people doze off after sex.

18th Sep 2019

Prom Night (1980)

Continuity mistake: When Robin lays there after she dies her head's facing forward, a shot later her head's turned to her left.

Rob245

18th Sep 2019

Prom Night (1980)

Question: Why in the world is Alex, when unmasked at the end, wearing lipstick? Symbolic or something?

Rob245

Answer: Alex is not the typical one dimensional slasher serial killer, but rather a complex individual with conflicting motivations. The lipstick is a symbol that he is portraying the hurtful people from his past even as he kills them.

Answer: The film doesn't provide an answer (which I think is a good thing). My interpretation is that Alex has somehow absorbed his sister's spirit, symbolically (not literally), and is avenging her death *as* Robin, in a way. Her name is his last word before he dies. A scene was shot but cut which revealed that Robin and Alex were twins. That scene was added back to the television edit of Prom Night.

I thought they said that when Kim was telling Nick on the hilltop where the beach was that Alex and Robin were TWINS! And what happened to Mr. And Mrs. Hammond? They "disappeared" after Kim and her father danced! So many QUESTIONS! And when did they say LOU was KIM'S EX? Missed that one.

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.