Corrected entry: When the attack helicopters go after Godzilla they use heat seeking missiles. Surely they wouldn't even notice a cold blooded lizard? Also when Godzilla chases them why don't they just go up out of reach, rather than running away below the rooftops?
lionhead
15th Dec 2002
Godzilla (1998)
Correction: The force of habit, most of the things they usually fight have warm components (soldiers, attack dogs, running engines, even mere campfires), and they don't have the time or know-how to custom make the missiles. Arctic researchers have made a similar mistake when tracking seals, they tried tracking them via infrared, which works in warmer climates perfectly well, but since it's obviously urgent that Polar warm-blooded creatures not lose heat, it was of limited to no use, and the scientists had to use other methods; which they, unlike the soldiers, had the time to find.
They should have immediately noticed the thing is too cold to use heat seekers on. They should have switched to cannons.
27th Aug 2001
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Plot hole: The "video history" of the crashed USAF ship makes it very clear that the planet is uninhabited when they "landed". I can understand how a race of apes develops - they had a bunch of them on board. I can understand how a race of humans develops - they are descendants of the original crew. What I don't understand is...where the heck did all the horses come from?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Humans refer to parts of their own planet as uninhabited even though they are crawling with animals - vast areas of the Arctic are "uninhabited" even though polar bears and seals are found there. Were we to find a planet with nothing but primitive horses on it, we would label it as uninhabited. Apes and humans came from the crashed spaceship, horses were always there.
Which still makes no sense whatsoever.
I agree with you Charles. Horses are native to Earth but, the Oberon lands on a planet light years from Earth so it's a big plot hole how horses from one planet could end up on another when the planet was not only uninhabited but, the Oberon was believed to be lost.
Again, the Oberon was a massive space station, genetically experimenting with many earthly lifeforms, including horses, apparently. The time/space-rift was very near Earth (Mark Wahlberg made the journey in about 25 seconds at the end of the film. Not years but seconds). The implication is that the Oberon passed through the rift, and much of the crew survived to continue their genetic research on what later became the Ape Planet. So, the Oberon initially arrived on a barren planet and introduced all of the biological and botanical species, including apes, horses, and everything else.
Suggested correction: According to the backstory, the space station Oberon was dedicated to genetic modification sciences. They were actually experimenting with animal genes in the safety of space (which kind of makes sense). Given that the Oberon was a truly gigantic space station, it's not too much of a speculation that they were experimenting on many different types of animals (not just apes). When the Oberon crashed on Ashlar, half its crew was killed, but half survived with a number of ship's systems still functional, and they continued their genetic research, possibly producing a number of Earthly species on the otherwise uninhabited planet.
I think this should've been posted as a question, rather than a plot hole.
That's just a wild guess. There hasn't been a single mention of horses on board the Oberon. Even if there were, why only horses?
Wild guess? The Oberon was experimenting in genetic modification, which implies a broad range of research...and not just on great apes. The Oberon was gigantic enough to be an Ark.
So where are all the other animals?
Exactly. Where are the birds, lions, lizards, etc?
8th Jun 2018
The Terminator (1984)
Other mistake: Why does the Terminator have a HUD (Head-up-Display) or a GUI (Graphical User Interface)? This is a stupid mistake in many movies with cyborgs or androids. A machine itself does not need a HUD. A HUD is an interface for humans to help us interact with machines. A machine does not need a graphical interface to interact with itself. A machine can interpret the reality around internally using machine code within its CPU using zeros and ones. There is no need to project a HUD in the eyes of the terminator. (of course it looks cool and the viewer gets the information that the Terminator is a machine, but in reality it would be - let's say - a stupid redundancy to build in a monitor into a camera).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The terminators are AI, since AI doesn't exist for real yet (not on that level) you don't know what it needs or how its supposed to function. Since these terminators are supposed to look and act like humans as they are infiltration units Skynet has build them to operate like humans as well. To help with thinking and acting like a human Skynet has build in a HUD in the optics so it will keep its focus on the visuals and not switch to internal sensors and computing when acting out it role as a human, that would look unnatural. With your logic its stupid for the terminator to put on sunglasses too, but it does anyway because it thinks like a human.
Gotta disagree - the sunglasses are it trying to fit in/cover damage, not "think like a human." All "thinking" can be done internally. It's like saying modern smartphones need stats displayed on the inside of the screen which we can't see - there's zero need for them, because in order to display that information, the information has to exist in the machine already. And if it already exists, the machine already has access to it, without then displaying it on something else.
But it's not a smartphone. It's an AI, an AI built to be as human as possible. Whatever is operating its brain has external sensors and possibly an external computer telling it new data (like for example date, target location, primary objectives) which isn't directly part of its own brain. You can see that in the third movie when the Terminatrix gets confirmation about identifying its primary target, and it gets excited from it. The data it receives is coming from somewhere else and the terminator is reading from it, receiving it through an interface in the eyes. Probably in the future they have a direct link to Skynet telling them what to do and when they go to the past that link with Skynet is turned into a computer database with an interface for the terminator to communicate with.
And how does this Skynet-upload to the terminators make the terminators more human if these information are displayed in a HUD? I am human too and never received any information into my eye as a projection (not without computers or Google glass or something like that). You are talking about simple data transfer, no need for a HUD and especially not to make the terminator more human (cause we humans do not have natural born HUDs in our eyes or brains). You are mixing up two things which really don't belong together. I was talking about recognition of environmental data in the first place and data processing of these. Still I don't see any need to HUD these information. We humans do not have HUD and are 100% humans. Your logic "HUD to become human" doesn't make any sense with or without a skynet data link.
It's not a simple little robot that uses sensors and act on them with a simple binary CPU, its an AI. It has optics, like I said it receives information and its displayed in the optics so it would not be distracted from acting human, turning inside itself to process it. You can give bad examples about us not having HUDs all you want but we get all outside information from our sense, 4 of them located in the head. We turn our attention to those senses when new information arrives. The Terminators get information input the same way, through the optics. They are build like a human. It can hear sound through its ears and smell from its nose. It sees with its optics, new information displayed upon them. What's so hard about that?
Because we don't have HUDs to display all that info, and we work just fine as human. All the information is dumped directly into our brains. The Terminators would work likewise - there's literally no need to have a visual interface - it's a pointless middleman between the sensors and the processor which only exists because it looks good on film.
I see where youre going with this and I would theoretically agree if (and that's the big if) the HUD-Display would be an extra device which the Terminator puts on his head. I agree if the human-emulation-part would be mostly human and the HUD part would be a standalone extra. Problem is they put both into one machine. Which means the whole construction is not a human emulation device with the aim "developing by mimicry humans." If so then the terminator-race isn't doing well by puting non-human things into their human-emulation-machines.
It's just way the machine is put together. There could be many reasons for the machine to have a HUD, like power efficiency or even they were forced to do it this way since the CPU it needs was too large to fit in the skull. Instead of directly interfaced it reads external inputs through the HUD in its optics. Not because it wants to, but because it has to. Might not seem all that logical and efficient, but I'm saying there can be a reason for it. Even information concerning itself is done this way because it can't connect with itself directly. Programs, software tell it what is going on. If my computer would have optics and the ability to read its quite handy when it needs to read off other machines and programs, ones that are not necessarily connected to it. It would seem the terminator brain, the CPU, the AI, is separated from the robotic body. The only thing connecting it with the rest of the body is the optics, giving it information.
Power efficiency? Putting information which came from "the eye" in the CPU and then back again into the CPU would cost double power and CPU size, cause you are doing anything two times. You are jumping now from "HUD for being human" to other translucent arguments. And your computer could have optics and read off other machines yes but it could do that without HUD. You only need a webcam and OCR. Reading data directly from inside other machines yes we call that bluetooth. However in none of these there is an extra machine outside the machine for the machine. It is always integrated into the machine and processing is internal.
Its all assumptions versus assumptions. I never said the HUD was there for the machine to "be more human", I said it was there because the terminator needs to keep its focus through the eyes to prevent it going internal whenever there is outside information. This all assuming the CPU in the brain isn't connected directly to the rest of the body, because of capacity and power issues. Again, all assumptions but what do you expect from sci-fi? Is it a mistake in the movie? Hardly.
Suggested Idea: Firstly, I agree that if the terminator type CPU operates as a binary machine (such as a laptop or smartphone) all internal communication would be in 1's and 0's. Even our current computers, which may output hex code to dump files is for the benefit and 'readability' of humans. However, a theory: I believe the HUD on the Terminator may be some kind of 'diagnostic' feature which was built in to the original machines which were first developed by humans. I may be over thinking this (it is just a movie) however if you look at some remote operated drones and such, information is provided on a HUD for the benefit of human operators (in an areal drone, this may be altitude, heading, speed etc). My theory would be that perhaps this 'diagnostic' is an integral part of the CPU and Skynet did not want to 'risk' disrupting processes by restructuring the processor architecture (these must be built in very sophisticated factories, assumed to have remained from before the war due to the complexity of them). If I were a super efficient AI - personally I would see a huge advantage in removing it (think Windows - how much processing power and effort goes into 'pointless' graphics for the benefit of the user, such as the animations when you copy a file). Your modern computer has processor cycles to spare, but in the terminators I would guess these would be less so - hence the assumptions that it is less risk rather than just Skynet just 'never got around to it'.
This can be one of the reasons why the terminator has a HUD. One of the most plausible I'd say. Skynet build these terminators fast, not sophisticated, eventually they are all based off a human used robot as displayed in T3. All they did was improve its combat capabilities and human mimicking.
8th Jun 2018
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Plot hole: When Picard, Hawk and Worf are out on the particle transmitter, they each have one gun. However, when Picard is attacked by Hawk, the gun that Hawk used is being stepped on by him. Picard left his gun over at the other mag lock, and Worf threw his away, but when the captain was in trouble, Worf had a gun. He would not have had time to run around to Picard's side before he was attacked by Hawk, so where did Worf get the other gun from?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As you can see in a wide shot after Worf's suit is cut, his gun is still hanging close by. So after he closed the gap in his suit he just grabbed his own gun. Of course, he did throw it away and it should have kept on moving all the way out of reach but something stopped it. But you do see it still in reach of Worf.
8th Jun 2018
Stargate (1994)
Corrected entry: The premise for Jackson going on the mission is that once on the other side someone would need to be able to re-open the gate using new symbols, but in reality it would just be a matter for earth to re-open the gate from their end at a predetermined time or times.
Correction: The gateway is a one way trip, you can't go back through the wormhole when the gate has been opened from the other side.
Pure assumption. We don't know exactly how the stargate works. It may actually be possible to go back through the stargate, even if you just came through and it was still open. We just don't know.
It has been well established that Stargate travel is one-way.
Since when?
After Jackson says he doesn't know how to dial back, when they are setting up camp, Brown says "if we're not back soon, they'll just turn on the gate from the other side", and Ferretti tells him "no, it doesn't work that way, you see, if you don't turn it on from here, we're screwed." The one way travel is also stated in the later TV series.
Since always.
7th Jun 2018
Highlander (1986)
Corrected entry: After the cops visit the marine in hospital they get a hot dog outside, look in the background and a passer by/extra (old man with a light coloured jacket) is looking directly at the camera, he even leans up against the lamp post without breaking eye contact with the camera.
Correction: So? He is not interacting with the camera, just an extra looking in the direction of the camera. Doesn't reveal anything, not a mistake at all.
7th Jun 2018
Highlander (1986)
Corrected entry: When the marine is driving around all four headlights are on, but when he pulls up in the darkened alley only two headlights are on.
Correction: He just switched to two headlights when he went into the alley. Could have done it at any time.
No need for him to drive down a well lit street with all the headlights on but when he turns into a darkened ally he turns two off, this is stupidly or a continuity mistake.
Why he does it is totally irrelevant. Its not a continuity mistake when the sequence of actions is consequential. He turns the headlights down, period.
27th Aug 2001
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Corrected entry: At the beginning of the film, when they show the map of Europe slowly being taken over by the Nazis, the Soviet Union in the map is actually modern day Russia. Their borders depict Ukraine as a separate country, when it was actually part of the Soviet Union. (00:05:00)
Correction: Its not modern day Russia because the Caucasus region is included. They don't show Ukraine as a separate country but they put a border across the Dnieper, which is right through the middle of the Ukraine. The pink part of the Ukraine is the region of the German reichskommissariat (roughly) they set up after occupation. Although the borders are confusing and inaccurate, it's not the borders of modern day Russia and Ukraine.
28th Sep 2005
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Factual error: The Junkers 88 bombers are flying far, far too low for a bombing run. They are barely clearing the buildings they are bombing. Low level bombing on an urban target would mean the bomber would be flying at between 600 and 700 feet whereas these bombers are flying at something like 30 or 40 feet above the rooftops of the buildings they are attacking. Even banking steeply would be a ridiculously dangerous manoeuvre, and at that height they would be sitting ducks for small arms fire and would be damaged by the explosions and debris from their own bombs. (00:40:15)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The JU 88 was a diver bomber used for low level bombing for precision. Because of the lack of sufficient JU-87's (Stukas), the JU-88 was used for ground support. It was normal for them to fly that low, despite being more vulnerable to small arms fire.
That isn't "low level" bombing - it's suicide. Low level bombing on an urban target would mean the bomber would be flying at between 600 and 700 feet. These bombers are flying at something like 30 or 40 feet above the rooftops of the buildings they are attacking. Even banking steeply would be a ridiculously dangerous manoeuvre. The original posting is correct.
Low level bombing is most definitely not 600 feet. They could easily operate at altitude below 100 meters. I've seen footage of low level bombing at exactly the altitude of the planes in the movie (by B-25s). Planes that fly that low won't be using bombs that explode right under them, they would use whats called "retarded-fall" bombs that have increase air resistance so there is a delay of their fall and won't explode right under the plane. They may even fly lower in Stalingrad to avoid AA fire, which have a harder time targeting low flying aircraft. They might also be flying as low as possible to get visual confirmation of their targets, to avoid hitting friendlies.
Ju88s had a climb rate between 700-800 feet per minute. Given that the primary German airfield was less than 15mi away at Pitomnik, their maximum altitude for a less-than-3-minute flight was a meager 2340 feet (~700m). Lower altitudes are within the realm of reason. Due to the Soviet strategy of keeping their front lines as close to the Germans as possible, it's almost necessary to fly low and get as accurate bombing runs as possible.
27th Aug 2001
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Factual error: The film map depicting the German advance showed Germany invading Turkey. Turkey did not enter the war until 1945 and never engaged in any combat. (00:05:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It does not show the German advancement in true historical order, but more like a red shadow that expands across Europe in a steady pace. And just as the camera starts zooming in on Stalingrad, you can see a small sliver of red starting to spread on the south-eastern coast of Norway.
It's not red but black. Norway was conquered by Germany, Turkey was an Allied country.
27th Aug 2001
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Factual error: When the map of the German advance is shown, Switzerland is shown to be taken over. Switzerland was never invaded by the Germans. (00:05:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It doesn't show German advances. It shows the German influence over Europe, symbolizing it covers all of Europe and then expanded towards the East. Italy was never conquered by the Germans either yet it was part of the axis and is shown being covered by black. Switzerland, though neutral, was fully surrounded by the Axis and their influence played heavily upon the country. Its a very crude simulation.
Suggested correction: It does not show the German advancement in true historical order, but more like a red shadow that expands across Europe in a steady pace. And just as the camera starts zooming in on Stalingrad, you can see a small sliver of red starting to spread on the south-eastern coast of Norway.
20th Dec 2001
The Mummy (1999)
Factual error: I counted five canopic jars, one of which has the head of a lion. In ancient Egypt there were only four canopic jars - Hapi, the baboon-headed god representing north, Imseti, the human-headed god representing south, Duamutef, the jackal-headed god representing east and Qebehsenuef, the falcon-headed god representing west. None have lion heads. (00:04:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Why does it matter. They added a fifth. No reason after making up a lot of history and a cover to cover book instead of a scroll for us to suddenly go, hmm, they gave the ten plagues of God in the Bible to an Egyptian priest? Lions are cats. Therefore worship, plus the lioness goddess who slew through the land once. They can certainly add that and might make it a nicer play on the mummy's power and deadliness comparatively to the canopic heads and their gods.
A better excuse is the fact that the earliest found canopic jars are from the 11th dynasty (2200 BC) whilst the jars in the movie are way older than that (2700 BC) and could have represented anything they wanted and be more than 4. Someone should make a correction like that.
There is no real excuse. It is simply an inaccuracy and the trivia section to include it as such. It certainly "does matter".
27th Aug 2001
Fail Safe (2000)
Other mistake: The president's translator puts on his headphones just before the receptionist announces the Russians are on the line.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He hears the buzzer before the receptionist speaks. Not a mistake.
31st Jan 2010
Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)
Corrected entry: In the beginning of the movie, we see a zombie eating from a corpse in the middle of the road. It then gets hit by our heroes' trucks. What doesn't make sense is the fact that zombie blood (highly infectious) splashes all over the side of the (windowless) bus with kids in it. There's nothing stopping the blood from getting in the kids' faces, yet nobody seems to be alarmed by this.
Correction: The zombie is hit and afterwards rolls and gets caught by the spikes on the wheels, they didn't aim for it intentionally. Sure it was stupid and possibly dangerous but that doesn't make it a plot hole. It was just a freak accident that turned out okay. Unless the kids are shown to have been covered by blood then this is not a plot hole.
4th Jun 2005
Resident Evil (2002)
Corrected entry: Why does Umbrella know that Red Queen killed everyone, but not that the virus is loose? Is there no way to see into or receive data from the Hive other than Red Queen? Does every communication in or out have to be approved through her? And even if she is the sole conduit for information into and out of the Hive, her primary purpose for existing is to keep the T-virus from escaping. Umbrella THINKS that Red Queen has malfunctioned. BUT, she is working perfectly! So suppressing info that the T-virus is loose in the Hive would contradict her core programming. So why doesn't Umbrella know?
Correction: Umbrella knows the T-virus is loose, they wanted that to happen. They send the team in there to fight their creations, to test their creations. Not to shut the hive down, that was just a ruse. Also, it's possible the Hive Queen was never meant to keep the T-virus from escaping, Umbrella was the one to program her and Umbrella wants a whole lot of things to happen except containing the T-virus as we learn from the future movies. The hive Queen was just a controlling unit for the experiment of the hive, to help the experiment succeed.
Umbrella staging this experiment, is that why the Red Queen didn't just have all staff come to a security room to obtain the cure? Because we know there is a cure, and we find out later from the Red Queen herself that if you administer the cure soon after the virus, the individuals might survive. Yes, I realise my question is based on a movie based on a game.
It's unclear why the Hive Queen acted as it did, either as part of the experiment or because the security measures just happened to help the experiment along. The original staff were never safe with the type of security it activated, the compound was already deemed lost, just containing it within was all the Hive Queen did. The rest is just a ruse.
I don't believe that is true either. It is canon now that Paul W S Anderson changed it but that is a plot hole within another plot hole because Spence didn't work for Umbrella and his motivations were not to spread the virus to start an apocalypse but to cover his tracks and steal the T Virus to sell on the black market. So in reality that is a plot hole even if the writer tried to change it.
It's not about spreading the virus, it's not about saving the people working at the hive. The Red Queen deemed the compound lost instead of trying to contain the virus and save the employees. Spence's actions were just convenient for Umbrella because it gave them the opportunity to test the virus.
I still don't get this. This makes sense for the most part concerning the reason why the Sanitation team was sent down there as a result of the story playing out like RE1, but... It doesn't add up on account of Spence himself, the guy who started all this. That means, somehow Umbrella knew of his plan to sell the T-Virus to black markets? And his backup plan to use it to cover his escape? If this is true why does the Red Queen prevent him from escaping? He gave them exactly what they wanted.
11th May 2007
Waterworld (1995)
Corrected entry: Since Earth is covered by a salty ocean, fresh water is treated as a rare, expensive commodity. This makes no sense, because the human body requires a certain amount of fresh water each day just to survive. If whole populations are sustaining themselves, this means that they have access to fresh drinking water reliably each day. Regardless of how people ration their fresh water, it won't be enough to sustain all those people for a year, much less through generations of people so that they would forget about the flooding of cities.
Correction: I guess you never heard of rain water or condensation? There are plenty of ways to collect fresh water, enough for every individual to have enough to sustain himself/herself at least. If an individual can collect fresh water for himself a community can do it much more efficient, collecting more fresh water than they actually need and therefor can trade with others. Eventually a community can even find ways to filter salt water. There were probably hard times where people were forced to drink their own urine, but still its not impossible for humans to survive a world of salt water over many generations.
2nd Oct 2012
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Plot hole: In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy tells Marcus he doesn't believe in magic or superstition. However, in this movie, which is set a year before Raiders, Indy not only witnesses supernatural acts, but takes advantage of them to win the day (by using the incantation to ignite the stones at the end). Therefore, by Raiders Indy would not only believe in magic and superstition but would know they exist. Listed for this movie as it was made after Raiders.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Just because Indy saw magic and supernatural powers in India doesn't mean he should believe the stories revolving around the ark of the covenant. Stories can still just be stories and not believed even by witnesses of unexplained phenomena.
Suggested correction: Indy saw some very surreal things and understands why people would form cultures and superstitions around them, but that doesn't mean he's concluded that it's necessarily "magic" or extrapolated that into a belief in superstition in general. You can read the end of Raiders, in which Indy suddenly orders Marion to shut her eyes when the Ark is opened, as being informed by the events in Temple of Doom and him knowing it's better to be safe than sorry regarding matters like this.
25th May 2018
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Continuity mistake: When Indy tries to grab the antidote vial from the table, in the closeup just as the vial falls off the table the camera follows the vial as it lands in the empty area to the left of Lao Che's chair where Kao Kan's chair should be, but it's not, and the rug's edge with wood floor beside Lao Che's chair though it shouldn't be. Then Indy hits Kao Kan who is again seated closely to Lao Che's left, as he should be, and when Kao Kan falls backward we see the rug edge is nowhere near Lao Che's chair, also as it should be. (00:08:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually it appears the vial falls to the left of Kao Ken's chair, not Lao Che's. It appears after Indy pierces the other guy with the shishkebab, Kao Ken, off camera, takes the vial and puts on his left side. Indy jumps on the table and after missing the vial he slides further and then elbows Kao Ken who is on the right side now. The vial is still on the left side of Kao Ken's chair when it's kicked onto the wooden floor.
You're very much mistaken. Lao Che is wearing an embroidered dinner jacket and has a pinky ring on his left pinky, and Kao Kan's left hand is bandaged in gauze. After Indy skewers Chen, in the closeup of Indy's hand just as it knocks the vial off the table, it's Lao Che's hand (note the pinky ring, etc) that we see on the table next to Nurhachi's urn, the stack of money, and the vial. That is not Kao Kan's hand/arm, remember his left hand is bandaged. And as this closeup continues to pan down it follows the vial as it lands on the floor in the empty space where Kao Kan's chair should be, but it isn't.
Yep, you're right I see it. There are 2 shots of Indy trying to grab the vial off the table and the second one is followed through with the vial falling off it and that one is wrong. Alright.
19th Jul 2007
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Corrected entry: When Barty Crouch Jr., as Moody, near the end of the film says about him providing Neville Longbottom with the book for the Gillyweed, Harry is mouthing his lines (before his close-up). (02:08:45)
Correction: He just licked his lips and swallowed, that's all.
Correction: He was talking to himself because he was shocked by things that Crouch Jr was telling him.
20th Mar 2006
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Corrected entry: When Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire, it is written on lined paper and not parchment. Wizards only use parchment.
Correction: In the books wizards only use parchments, but it is not stated in the movies that they never use paper.
Yep I even think its done intentionally. Barty Crouch Junior intentionally used muggle paper for Harry's name to make it more believable that Harry did it himself.
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.
Correction: Cold-blooded doesn't mean cold. A reptile is as warm as his environment. A little added exertion would make Godzilla warm enough for the missiles to work. What's more, the iguana she once was has turned dinosaurian, with legs under the body. As such, she could easily be warm-blooded now like dinosaurs are thought to be.
It's mentioned by the helicopter pilot in the movie that the lizard is colder than the buildings around it. She isn't warm blooded, she isn't expelling any heat at all.
lionhead