Revealing mistake: When Luke is being fed to the Rancor, in Jabba the Hutt's dungeon, there are black outlines around the beast's legs, from the composite's blue screen special effect. This was edited out in the special edition rerelease.
lionhead
2nd Jun 2005
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This was not a "mistake". The outlines showing around the beast's leg were due to the limited CGI technology at the time the film was made. With advances in special effects in the following decades, the filmmakers were able to enhance the CGI quality in later releases.
But it is a mistake to show that the Rancor is not real, and the outlines show that. It's certainly not intentional.
Not sure what you mean that the rancor is not real. Of course it's not real. The issue is, at that time, it was not technically possible to show the beastie without the lines showing. I classify a mistake as something that was not intentional. In this case, it was, due to the limitations of CGI in the 1980s.
18th Jun 2014
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Question: At the beginning of the movie, Peter asks Voldemort if they can perform the ritual without Harry. Why? Does he now feel bad for betraying Harry's parents?
Answer: There are several reasons here. Peter Pettigrew regretted betraying the Potters and knows he is a lowly coward for having done so and for obeying Voldemort out of fear. He also knows that Harry spared his life during the confrontation in the Shrieking Shack (in Prisoner of Azkaban) when Lupin and Sirius were about to kill him. Because of Harry's mercy, Pettigrew is now magically bound to Harry with a life debt. In the books, this will later cost Pettigrew his life when he hesitates to kill Harry (in Deathly Hallows) and his silver hand instead fatally strangles him for defying Lord Voldemort.
In the movies, Pettigrew NEVER regretted betraying Harry's parents and, on the contrary, was actually proud of doing so.
Where did you get that idea from? He is a coward and cowardice controls him. Not pride.
It is mentioned on the internet sites like TV Tropes, Villains Wiki, and Pure Evil Wiki. These sites mention that movie version of Pettigrew is far more evil than his book version.
None of those sites indicate he was proud of what he had done or does. They just mention the movies don't show Peter having regrets like he does in the books. Doesn't mean he doesn't have it. We see very little of him in any of the movies anyway. He is still only known as a coward and nothing more of him is shown than that.
20th Nov 2014
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Question: With Peter being such a coward, why did he actually go and find Voldemort?
Answer: Because he is far more afraid of what would happen to him if Voldemort returned and Peter hadn't assisted in it.
In the movies, Peter Pettigrew is less cowardly than in the books. In this movie, he never shows any sign of cowardice and is depicted as a ruthless, cold-blooded character.
He cowers away when Voldemort accuses him of returning out of fear, not loyalty. He is Voldemort's pet, and does as he says without question because he is afraid of him. That does make him cold-blooded though.
30th Mar 2024
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Plot hole: It makes absolutely no sense why the Terminator, who is a programmed killer, chooses not to kill anyone in this film. In Terminator 2, he didn't kill because John, who was his master, ordered him not to. In this film, we learn that John is not his master. Kate Brewster is. And she spends most of her time complaining and trying to escape from John and the Terminator. She certainly wasn't gonna bother giving the Terminator a pep talk on no killing. So it just remains a plot hole.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Kate Brewster told the Terminator not to kill when she reprogrammed him in the future. It's a logical order to give since its mission is to protect. It's likely John gave her that idea in the future when telling her about the terminator from T-2 (before he died of course) who he gave the same order to.
I agree, but it is also possible that Kate programmed him not to kill anyone.
That's what I said.
5th Jun 2013
Starship Troopers (1997)
Corrected entry: How much ammo can one gun hold? It seems that a single clip can hold enough ammo to run fully-automatic fire for a full minute or more. Example: soldiers need hundreds of rounds to kill one bug, and a soldier can kill several without reloading. Even a conservative 100-200 rounds would be about as much as could physically fit in the clips, yet they seem to provide as much as a thousand rounds each.
Correction: This is future tech you are talking about here. It is not unlikely they had made guns that can hold several hundreds of rounds of ammunition when fighting an enemy that doesn't go down easily. The bullets are probably not big at all and the force behind them causes the most damage. That way one of those quite large weapons can hold up to a thousand bullets easily.
When the Troopers hand out their guns and ammo to a bunch of kids, the rounds are shown and they are large, so I think this is a valid mistake.
Those rounds don't have to be rounds from those guns. They don't appear to be live rounds anyway.
3rd Apr 2021
Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979)
Question: According to Werner Herzog, the rats that appear in the film behaved better than Klaus Kinski during the shoot. Is this true?
Answer: True, though the rats comment was deliberate hyperbole. Kinski suffered from mental illness much of his life. He was often volatile, erratic, disruptive, and sometimes violent on movie sets. Kinski and Herzog had a long professional collaboration but also a friendship pre-dating Herzog's directing career. Otherwise, though Herzog admired Kinski's talent, he probably would never have tolerated working with him; he is the only director who worked with him more than once. Herzog did a documentary about Kinski after his death, which included footage of his on-set rants. Clips are on YouTube.
Moreover, Herzog was initially reluctant to hire Kinski in Fitzcarraldo movie because he was afraid that Kinski would go "totally bonkers" if trapped in the Amazon for any length of time, and his fears proved to be well-founded.
To correct a slight factual error in the answer: Director Alfred Vohrer worked on more movies with Kinski than Herzog did.
16th Jul 2012
Hot Tub Time Machine (2010)
Corrected entry: After being transported to the 1980s, the guys have possession of things which they did not take into the hot tub with them. Nick has his cell phone, Jacob has his snowboard, Lou has his backpack, and they are all wearing clothing that they brought with them when they go skiing.
Correction: This isn't a mistake, it's a plot point. They need the Russian energy drink to get back to the present.
I feel this is more of an excuse than a correction.
11th Nov 2023
What If...? (2021)
What If... Captain Carter Were the First Avenger? - S1-E1
Factual error: When Stark starts telling about the Tesseract, the colonel shows surprise that Nazis were in Norway. Peggy answers with "Close. HYDRA." The scene is set in 1943, and Norway had been occupied by Nazi Germany for three years already. Them being in Tønsberg should not come as a great surprise to an Allied commander. (00:07:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I feel like this falls under the "Not a mistake because it's an alternate universe" umbrella. We're in an entirely different universe with a different timeline in this episode.
The show also makes a point that the only difference should be the minor choices or events befalling the MCU characters, and how these minor things have huge consequences for them, basically creating a new alternate timeline. Basic world history before these events is not affected by the new timeline.
Basic, unaltered world history does not apply with this because we are talking about an alternate WWII from the beginning. One with Schmitt/Red Skull as propaganda minister of Hitler, Hydra superseding the SS, super soldier serum, Stark tech, the Tesseract, etc. It is not WWII as we know it, even without the "what if."
25th Jun 2002
Independence Day (1996)
Corrected entry: When the alien is brought into the containment lab of Area 51, we see all sorts of high-tech monitors set up and doctors running around checking everything works and everything is prepped and ready for the alien. So why is it, after all this work, they forget to administer some form of anaesthetic to the alien knowing that not only is it merely unconscious from a punch to the head but it has a nasty temperament towards mankind?
Correction: Maybe they gave it the anaesthetic, and it didn't work.
Making up Deus ex Machina corrections for mistakes does not invalidate them. The technicians and scientists made no effort to restrain a potentially hostile and dangerous alien, and that belongs under "Stupidity."
There is nothing "deus ex machina" about the correction. The entry asks why they didn't use an anaesthetic, and the correction addresses that issue. There is no talk about restraints, which is a different issue (can restrain the suit but what about the alien within?).
19th May 2005
Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995)
Question: What is that gun thing that is pushed into the guy's neck after he says "I thought this was a currency exchange?" Is the guy dead or just knocked out?
Answer: Knocked out. It was a hand held tranquilizer gun like most vets use on animals to put them to sleep.
Answer: I've always wondered this and I don't think you're going to find a good answer. I know everyone is saying it was a tranquilizer. But tranquilizers wear off and if one of those people they gave an injection to regained consciousness it could be a big problem for them. eg. The cops in the subway. That's why I think it was probably a fatal injection of something.
It's not a fatal injection. Remember, Simon says, "I'm a soldier, not a monster." And earlier, one of the henchmen yelled at Otto, "No shooting." Simon doesn't intend to kill anyone (though later he changes his mind when he's ready to blow up the ship). The only people who killed anyone were Otto, Katya, and McClane.
I'm pretty sure the bombing at the beginning of the movie killed people. Plus, the bomb in the subway would have killed a whole bunch of people. Saying Simon doesn't intend to kill anyone is quite naive.
5th Jan 2024
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: When Luke says he can't kill his own father, Obi-Wan tells him, "Then the Emperor has already won." But if Luke actually did kill Darth Vader, he would be left to fight the Emperor by himself, or could even be influenced to switch sides. The Emperor does try this later, suggesting that Luke replace Vader. How would that be a triumph for Obi-Wan and Yoda?
Answer: Obi-Wan didn't think it would be an immediate victory or Luke would rush to then combat the Emperor. His reasoning is that eliminating Vader would weaken the Emperor's power by removing his main enforcer. Once Vader was gone, Obi-Wan and Luke would have to devise a strategy on how to defeat the Emperor. Leaving Vader alive leaves the Emperor's power intact. Obi-Wan trusts that the Emperor will never sway Luke to the Dark side. However, Luke is unable to face destroying his own father.
So, you think they wanted Luke to fight Vader alone again, defeat him, and they would deal with the Emperor later? Instead of Luke allowing Vader to "capture" him and take him to the Emperor?
Facing his father would be facing his fears. Facing his fears is what will keep Luke away from the dark side. That was the first step in beating the emperor. Luke is understood enough in the end that killing his father is not the answer, but he did manage to beat him. And that was the victory. Because that caused Anakin to turn back to the light side and kill the emperor. Obi-Wan and Yoda can't tell Luke everything he needs to do, some he has to do himself.
5th Jan 2024
Demolition Man (1993)
Stupidity: Dr. Cocteau's choice to unleash an enhanced Simon Phoenix without any way to restrain him is incredibly reckless and stupid. Even if Simon were to kill Eager Friendly, in the best case situation, you'd still have a madman with total computer access, martial arts knowledge, etc., that you would have no way to rein in. Sure, he can't kill Dr. Cocteau, but what would stop him from say, holding the city hostage or something? Why not add in a kill code or something to keep him in check?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Who says he didn't? Cocteau has put in mental conditioning compelling Phoenix to kill Edgar Friendly and make him unable to kill Cocteau. Who says he hasn't put in something that makes him kill himself after the deed is done? Or perhaps paralyze him so he can be put back on ice. It's just that Cocteau didn't count on the fact that his henchmen could kill him. He doesn't care about how dangerous he is, not until he has done the deed.
Dr. Cocteau is a narcissistic egomaniac type that would see himself as a king or a god, even. And Simon is making him very angry. He even tells Simon, "you're beginning to be more trouble than you're worth..." Someone with an ego like Cocteau wouldn't stand for Simon's antics for very long. And would happily enjoy putting Simon back in his place by shocking, paralyzing, etc.
But he first needs him to kill Friendly. Until he does that, he'll let him play. He still sees no danger to himself.
5th Jan 2024
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: The ending of Back to the Future, Marty says he's not going to the lake as the car is 'wrecked'. All the family react as if he's talking about the BMW. They rush out and see it is fine. But they know Marty has the Toyota truck - why would they not think he meant his car is wrecked'? I know he says car not "truck" but he's talking about going up to the lake - he wouldn't be going in his Dad's BMW. So is this a mistake or bad script writing? (01:49:00 - 01:51:00)
Answer: Why wouldn't he go in the BMW? Going to the lake doesn't mean off-road driving, it might be a nice paved road all the way to a touristy spot. I don't think it's a mistake or bad writing.
Answer: It would've simply been down to the pure shock of what Marty was saying. The second he said "The car's wrecked", they dropped what they were doing and went to check. They didn't even care about the first part of Marty's sentence at this point, as all that was going through their heads would've been "Has something happened to the car?"
18th Jun 2023
Bad Boys (1995)
Other mistake: In the film, Lawrence and Smith's characters are Narcotics detectives with Miami Dade Police. There's no way they should be at any homicide investigations. Narc and homicide are totally two different units within law enforcement, so it's unlikely narcotics units would be at a homicide scene. Being the scene where they're investigating Smith's friend getting killed, and then they stumble across the dead body at the mansion.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The captain called Mike and Marcus to the scene to help because it appeared related to the missing drugs. They were there to find leads to the missing heroin.
Yes, that could be correct, but the chances of that happening are slim to none. A captain from Narcotics wouldn't even have authorization to call his detectives to a murder scene to help out homicide detectives working a murder. Any information or clues would be collected and shared with other units or agencies if deemed appropriate.
30th Dec 2023
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Question: Had Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan been able to both survive and defeat Maul, would this mean Sidious would not be able to manipulate Anakin anymore? Or would the Sith Lord have simply tried a different plan, besides emotional manipulation, to try to trick an Anakin trained under Qui-Gon into the dark side?
Answer: I don't think his plans would change. Qui-Gon is just another Jedi Master training Anakin, nothing much different because Obi-Wan was trained by him as well, after all. Plus, Qui-Gon much more believes Anakin is the chosen one, so he would probably allow Anakin a lot more than Obi-Wan would, including his relationships with Palpatine and Padme, which both are more important for Anakin's switch to the dark side.
I (not who submitted the question) wonder if Palpatine actually wanted Darth Maul to be killed by Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, or both. It seems like he mostly trained Maul to fight. Maul seemed to know little about the plotting, scheming, and political dealings. Dooku was capable in those areas, and was skilled at fighting. He was probably more useful while Palpatine waited to turn Anakin.
Not sure about that. I think he genuinely thought Darth Maul was properly trained to defeat Jedi. I don't think Palpatine planned ahead in terms of apprentices, except Anakin. But Darth Maul was before he knew Anakin. I don't think Sith are easy to find either, so Palpatine needed Maul for a lot of things more than just kill Jedi. It is too convenient however that every apprentice he had served his plans perfectly. Because I don't see Maul lead the separatists.
I was under the impression that Palpatine knew about Anakin ever since Shmi was chosen to be Anakin's mother. I might be wrong. This is an interesting discussion, though - I appreciate your response. Some think that Maul had limited use of the Force and was more of a trained assassin. But, if that were true, why call him a Sith apprentice? As you say, it's hard to imagine him being a Separatist leader.
I do not have any knowledge regarding any books written or other sources that might be considered canon, as have been mentioned in other comments here recently. My knowledge is purely the movies. As per the movies, Palpatine only learned of Anakin after the Battle of Naboo.
20th Dec 2023
Aliens (1986)
Question: I have a question regarding some of the slang used in the film. During the briefing just before the marines go down to the planet, Hudson asks, "Is this going to be a stand-up fight or another bug-hunt?" And what does Gorman mean when he says they think xenomorphs are involved? People say xenomorph is a fancy term for the species of aliens in this film series, however, it's made clear that at the beginning of the movie this is an unknown species, so that term couldn't refer specifically to them.
Answer: In addition to the other answers, I'd like to point out that xenomorph simply means strange or alien form.
Answer: It wasn't exactly an "unknown" species. "The Company," the commercial operation funding everything, knew the alien creatures existed and had wanted them as bio-weapons since the first film. It's unclear what Gorman knew but likely little more than his troops. Burke knew about the creatures and his purpose was to collect one, the same as Ash in the original "Alien." The term "xenomorph" is a general term that could be applied to any extraterrestrial non-humanoid species. Hudson is asking if they're hunting a non-sentient being.
Yeah, Gorman had no clue about the xenomorphs whatsoever. No way. The Company did, Burke is part of the Company, but Gorman isn't. He, like the others, is just cannon fodder. The term is used as you describe it though. You gotta understand that the Company itself probably doesn't know how a full-grown xenomorph actually looks like. Not until Alien 4. They just know there is alien biotech to be claimed.
5th Dec 2023
Jurassic Park (1993)
Question: The second Nedry notices the Dilophosaurus in the jeep with him, why didn't he quickly get out and shut the door, trapping it inside? He had a second or two before the Dilophosaurus started growling and attacking him, plenty of time to get out.
Answer: There are some additional factors that would interfere with his ability to move quickly: He was obese (so not very agile) and his vision was impaired (he dropped his glasses and was sprayed with gunk in his eyes).
Answer: In addition to what RayWest and LionHead wrote, I would like to point out that it's easy to say what a person should have done. You're watching the situation as an outsider. Granted, this is a fantasy situation in a movie about dinosaurs, but the mentality is realistic: people who are actually in a situation don't always think of something that seems obvious.
Answer: The fact that Nedry was in a car could've been giving him a false sense of security. Yes, he could've gotten out of the car, but then he'd be out in the open, making it easier for him to get attacked by any other dinos that were lurking about. In the car, he probably (incorrectly) assumed that the Dilophosaurus would have restricted movement due to how small cars are, making it harder for it to attack.
22nd Nov 2023
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Why did Count Dooku tell Anakin and Obi-Wan to hand over their swords/lightsabers? Did he actually think they would do it?
Answer: He tells them to draw out their lightsaber, to not delay, and just start the fight.
But he says, "We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor," as if he is trying not to fight.
The "mess" I think he is referring to is the pointless debate they will go into if they don't simply start dueling. A few seconds later, he says, "I've been looking forward to this", so he always wanted to fight. You have to understand that Dooku knows Palpatine is his master, and he has been ordered by Palpatine to get Anakin over to the dark side. The only way for him to do that is to best Anakin in dueling, showing him the dark side is stronger. Little did he know.
22nd Nov 2023
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Why did Obi-Wan go to Padme's apartment (as she told Anakin later) to discuss being worried about Anakin? He either doesn't know about their marriage, or he pretends to not know because Anakin would be expelled from the Jedi Order. In order to keep up appearances, it should be strange for him to visit her home.
Answer: He is hoping she knows where he is. He hopes to convince her to tell him so he can confront him.
The question is not about Obi-wan talking to Padme before the fight on Mustafar. It's about the off-screen visit, when Anakin asked Padme if Obi-wan had been to the apartment. She said yes, Obi-wan came by that morning because he was worried about Anakin. Why would he stop at her apartment if he "isn't supposed to know" that she is Anakin's wife?
Okay, my bad. Wasn't clear to me.
27th Oct 2023
Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990)
Question: Given Kate met Gizmo in the previous movie, how could she mistake Daffy for him? He looks different from Gizmo.
Answer: She only saw him briefly, never in full light either. Plus, it was some time ago. I don't think she would suspect there is another one either.
At the end of the first movie, after killing the gremlins, everyone is at Billy's house, and Kate puts a thermometer in Gizmo's mouth and looks directly at him while doing it, giving her plenty of time to look at him.
Still, very briefly, still in low light. She has had way less interaction with Gizmo overall.
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.