Question: What is the most likely explanation for what was in the case?
Jon Sandys
23rd Feb 2024
Ronin (1998)
Answer: Regarding the movie question, there's no way of knowing what was in the case. It is a plot device called a "MacGuffin," a term coined by director Alfred Hitchcock. It doesn't actually matter what the object is but is just something that drives the story. It can be any type of object or device such as a "secret formula," "enemy war plans," a "nuclear weapon," a "treasure map," and so on that the characters are either searching for or protecting. There was never any intention to reveal what it was. Its purpose is to motivate the characters' actions and tell the story. Most likely it was intended to be a McGuffin just to keep the audience guessing and thinking about the movie long after it ends.
5th Dec 2023
General questions
For a period of time starting in the mid-2000s, it became common for most major DVD releases to have both 1- and 2-disc editions. Typically, the 2-disc edition just had more bonus content and cost a few dollars more, while the 1-disc edition had less content and was cheaper. I never understood this. This was before streaming became huge, so it didn't incentivize buying the DVD, nor did the 2-disc edition cost much more, so it couldn't have had much impact on profit. So why was this even a thing?
Answer: OP here. From everything I've been able to find, it pretty much just looks like it was just a bit of a gimmick. Put some extra bonus content on a second disc, call it a "Special Edition" or "Collector's Edition" or "Limited Edition," and charge an extra $5 for it. People who wanted just the movie could buy the single disc for the standard price, and people who wanted more special features paid a slightly more expensive "premium price." And it would subtly boost profits.
I think you're right - the extra content largely existed already, there was no significant cost to produce it, and mastering a second version of the DVD wouldn't cost much in the grand scheme of things either, so any extra amount would have been pure profit. Showgirls (first example I found) apparently made $37m in cinemas and $100m in DVD sales. A couple of extra dollars per unit would add up. It might also serve as "anchoring" if that's the right term - having a more expensive 2 disc version makes the single disc version look like better value to the casual buyer (while also appealing more to the movie buff). There are certainly some films I splashed out on for the fancier version because I was a fan (and then of course never really watched the extras much!), but going back a while there was literally no other way to see this extra content unless you bought the special edition.
From the perspective of why they were simultaneously released (and with a relatively small difference in price), I'd agree. But this is different from why two-disc versions were released some time after the one-disc version (and with a substantial difference in price). That is, the reasons why this initially happened are different from why it continued to happen.
I was trying to refer to concurrent releases in my question. Unfortunately, the character limit meant I could not give any examples. I was referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Transformers." I used to go to the store at midnight to buy new DVD releases around the time those movies came out, and there would almost always be a single disc DVD with just the movie and a few features, and a 2-Disc set with more special features released on the same day. (A 2-disc special/anniversary edition being released a few years later for an older title makes sense, and is a different matter entirely. I'm referring to when multiple editions of the same new release were put out at the same time.)
Yes, I finally figured this out! You are asking about a specific time period and looking for a straightforward answer, without putting things in historical perspective (the developing technology and decreasing costs of mass-producing DVD movies). The extras (plus a little more) that used to be included on the standard editions were now on a second disc with the package costing about $5 more. It probably came down to "will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?"
It probably came down to 'will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?' "and unfortunately when I was a teenager, I was, hahahaha. But yeah, the more I look into it, the more it does just seem like a total gimmick. (I feel like a good modern comparison might be steelbooks... cool packaging, but usually sold for a very high markup even though it's the same exact discs.)
My "victimization" came much earlier. I had the standard release versions of movies and, later, when I started to see much more expensive two-disc versions, I thought, "Who would buy these now?" Well, I think I ended up buying 3 versions of "Terminator 2." [Why?]
Answer: From my experience, the 2-disc versions provided two different formats. Typically, the 1-disc version was Fullscreen and, depending on its release, did have additional content like commentaries and deleted scenes. The 2-disc version included a Widescreen version as well as extra materials, extended cuts, remastered versions, or special edition, etc. Later, when Blu-Ray came out, the 2-disc set usually included a standard DVD version. Some DVDs were sold as 2-sided without a lot of extra content but having a Fullscreen and Widescreen version.
This doesn't really answer the question. I'm not referring to those. I'm more so referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Super 8". Their DVDs only came in widescreen, but had two versions. A single-disc edition with just the movie and a few special features, and a 2-disc edition that had more special features. I'm curious as to WHY many titles had single and two-disc editions with the only difference being the amount of special features. It just seems more logical to release just the 2-disc edition. This answer basically just explains that 2-disc existed.
I apologise for misunderstanding the question, because what you described in my experience was atypical. And in my opinion, it makes sense to release two versions, but I'm afraid to answer why if I turn out to still not understand the question.
No problem. It's a very weird, specific question, hahaha. Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't even really an answer beyond just "they decided to try it for some reason."
Answer: Simply put MONEY.
Profits are almost always, if not always, a factor. The two-disc versions with "extras" might have been enough to get certain movie buffs to buy them, even though they already had the single-disc version - but I doubt very many people actually did so.
5th Oct 2023
Goldeneye (1995)
Question: Was any reason ever given as to why Bond's gadget-filled car was barely used in this film? It seems odd to give the series a fresh start in many ways, make a big deal about his car with missiles inside the lights, and then he drives it for 30 seconds and gives it away. Why bother giving him a car at all?
Chosen answer: There hadn't been a Bond film for seven years, and it was a new Bond. They wanted to get away from the gadgets and show him at his best. It was a way to let people accept Pierce Bronsan, watching what he can do. He put a lot of Sean Connery into it.
I can see that, but it just seems weird to highlight the features the car has and then not use them. Would have been simpler to omit it entirely, but presumably BMW wanted some product placement.
According to Wikipedia, the deal with BMW came at the last stage in production, so they were only able to put the car in the movie but not make scenes where the gadgets are actually used. I can imagine they'd have to rewrite parts of the script and take more time filming to do that.
25th May 2023
Futurama (1999)
Question: Which episode is it where the characters visit either a museum or an archaeological dig of the 20th century, and come across a voiceover/narrator/scientist making wild and wrong assumptions about the use of common objects? I've got a quote in my mind that's something like "here's where people would maybe do [something] perhaps."
Chosen answer: In s02e06, "The Lesser of Two Evils", they go to "Past-o-Rama" amusement park. There's a hologram of an Old New York traffic and the voice over guy says something like "it was a forum for a free exchange of opinions", followed by New Yorkers yelling.
Thanks! I think what I was remembering was that combined with the Bigfoot video where the narrator says "In the dense forests of the Pacific Northwest dwells the strange and beautiful creature known as Bigfoot, perhaps."
22nd May 2023
Full House (1987)
Trivia: In this season, you can see DJ, Gibler, and Stephanie having a conversation in the garage. Before the renovation, Stephanie expressed her concern about there being a monster in the garage. However, in the episode before this, they renovated the garage and turned it into Joey's room. The episodes were aired out of order, hence the discontinuity, but it's not strictly a "mistake", more just an indication that this episode is clearly set earlier in the season.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The episodes were simply aired out of the order in which they were produced.
In the "world" of the show, however, this is a mistake. The garage can't be renovated in one episode, then be the former garage in the next episode. The rules of this site note that behind-the-scenes explanations are not valid corrections.
No. The correction is valid. It's not a "behind the scene" explanation. The show's continuity remains constant if you watch the episodes in the order they were produced. A network's decision to air them out of order is not the fault of the show. This would be like if you had a book on CD where each track is a chapter but you played the CD on shuffle and then blamed the book for its continuity issues.
I can see both sides of it in terms of it being a "mistake", but it's such a grey area that stuff like this is rarely worth a debate. It's such a blatant discontinuity that it's a byproduct of the episodes being shuffled, making this more of a "prequel" rather than it being a mistake. A bit like errors in subtitles, it comes down to what strictly counts as a mistake in the show vs. A problem arising after the fact, whether someone's "at fault" or similar. I'll refile this as trivia.
11th Jun 2003
Scream 3 (2000)
Other mistake: On the back cover of Scream 3 in the Scream trilogy on DVD, the town of the original killings is referred to as Greensboro twice. The correct name of the town is Woodsboro, of course.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I'm not "correcting" this per se, but I'm wondering if there should be either a separate type of mistake for things like DVD/Blu-Ray cases or posters (Ex. "Multimedia and Marketing Mistakes" or something like that), or if these things would be better classified as trivia? Especially since it's not something everyone can necessarily observe watching the movie itself. (Ex. My Blu-Ray and 4K releases don't have this mistake.) If not, feel free to downvote/delete this. I've just seen a few of these mistakes over the years here, and it always seems a little off to me since it's not something wrong with the film itself.
I agree these aren't valid movie mistake if the studio wasn't involved in the mistake. It could be trivia if only certain home releases had them. These mistakes are like when episodes are aired out of order creating continuity issues,, streaming services make changes, or closed captioning (not subtitles) gets something wrong. It can't be considered a mistake of the film or TV series.
It's tricky - largely, if I'm honest, because adding new types to the site is incredibly fiddly. :-) There's also room for endless debate about what's a "mistake", whether it's about assigning specific blame or just looking for interesting stuff. Likewise things that can only be seen in slow motion, which arguably warrant a category to themselves because there are plenty of them, but then the "mistakes" section gets cluttered. Becomes a user interface issue as much as anything! Will think.
9th Aug 2022
Aliens (1986)
Question: I know there's a few different releases of this film with different scenes. Has it ever been revealed how the Aliens managed to get inside the complex? Ripley states they must have missed an entrance to which Hudson replies they didn't miss anything. Is there a deleted scene, director's cut etc that shows how the aliens got in?
Answer: It's shown in the film (both versions) that the Aliens use the space in the drop ceiling to get into the complex. The drop ceiling doesn't show on the blueprints so Ripley and the Marines didn't think about it. When Ripley wonders if they missed anything Hicks replies "We didn't miss anything." Hicks is technically correct, but Ripley then says "Something not on the blueprints, I don't know." They did not account for the fact the ceiling grates aren't the actual top of the room because they made their plans based on the blueprints.
The aliens used the space above the drop ceilings to move around the complex once inside, but it is never revealed how they actually got in from outside.
Alien: Resurrection shows the aliens are happy to sacrifice one of their own to use their blood to help them escape captivity - possible something similar happened here if they knew it was worth them getting inside.
14th Nov 2021
General questions
There's a movie or maybe TV show where at the end two little kids get adopted - a boy who's black and a blonde haired white girl. Someone crouches down to them, maybe in an airport, and asks if they want to come with them. Any clues what this is from?
Chosen answer: Something similar happens in one of the final episodes of the sitcom "30 Rock." Liz Lemon ends up adopting two children that she picks up from an airport - a black boy named Terry and a blond white girl named Janet - who humorously and ironically have almost the exact same personalities as her annoying co-workers Tracey and Jenna. Could that be it?
Aha, that's it! My wife sends her thanks, that was annoying her. :-).
24th Oct 2021
No Time to Die (2021)
Corrected entry: Bond was exposed to the nanites at the SPECTRE party that would kill all the bad guys to include the one in prison and their families. So why all the focus on Bond touching the hand of his former flame that was sprayed with nanites? We learn later in the film that nanites stay with you forever.
Correction: Because as is the entire plot of the film, the nanites are targeted against specific individuals. Bond being tainted with the "anti-SPECTRE" nanites was irrelevant. But at the end, Safin deliberately infects him with nanites which will only kill Madeleine and Mathilde.
You miss the point I was making, that Bond was already tainted (with SPECTRE killing nanites) at the party before he went to the prison. What's irrelevant is the focus in the movie on Bond touching his ex-flame then touching Blofeld in prison.
The nanites are targeted per person. The movie shows Bond's DNA profile being switched with that of all the SPECTRE agents who were in attendance at the event. Blofeld's DNA profile wasn't among them, because Safin knew he wasn't at that event. That's why Safin instead used Madeleine as a delivery method, being the only way to get to Blofeld. Bond didn't have anti-Blofeld nanites on him until he touched Madeleine. The nanites he already had on him were only effective against the now-dead SPECTRE agents, not Blofeld.
27th Sep 2008
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Trivia: The scene in which the Fellowship mourns Gandalf in Moria was filmed, ironically, before the group had even met Ian McKellen.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not true.
This isn't a valid correction. Anyone can say "Not true" to any submission if they want to. You need to have actual data to back up your claim.
Agreed, but by the same token, anyone can post anything as trivia. How do we know the original post is true? The OP offers no source.
This entry doesn't look nor sound credible.
That may be so, but since the webmaster approved it, anyone who wishes to correct it needs to have information proving it to be wrong.
It's always a bit case by case - the member who submitted it is generally reliable, not prone to making stuff up, etc. But I'm open to corrections!
12th Jul 2021
Black Widow (2021)
Question: Spoilers! The woman who Yelena kills at the start isn't seen hugely, but bears a passing resemblance to Olga Kurylenko, who's in the opening credits but isn't actually seen until nearly the end of the film. Does anyone know if this was a deliberate choice to misdirect more casting-savvy viewers as to the part she actually plays, or am I misremembering, and the woman at the start doesn't look much like her at all?
Chosen answer: Are you talking about the woman who has the mind control antidote that ends up freeing Yelena from the Red Room's control? She's a rogue ex-Widow named Oksana played by martial artist and stunt coordinator Michelle Lee.
That's her. It's only a semi-resemblance, but was close enough that I basically assumed if that was Olga Kurylenko she'd had her role cut down, or was a cameo, or might appear in flashbacks. Either way I didn't spend the film thinking "when's Olga Kurylenko showing up?", and anyone asking that of themselves presumably might figure out who was playing Taskmaster before the big reveal. I might just be overthinking it of course. :-).
I actually thought it might have been Olga Kurylenko at first as well.
21st Dec 2008
Spartacus (1960)
Corrected entry: Crassus, when talking to the man he makes the head of the Roman Garrison, says that the reason he is doing this is to 'checkmate' his senate opponent. 'Checkmate' is a chess term and as such would not have been used by a Roman in the 1st Century BC as the game wasn't invented until at least the 6th Century AD in India.
Correction: As is standard with historically-set films, the language and terminology used has been updated to be understandable to a present-day audience. This is a standard movie convention and is not considered a mistake.
I've never heard it said that anachronistic language is not a mistake, and should not be counted as a mistake here. The fact that they speak English, not Latin, is the cinematic convention. Not that they use figurative language that only makes sense in a future context.
It's a grey area, but there's a case to be made that like the language being updated to be understood by audiences rather than subtitled Latin, the same is true of analogies, etc. They could have made reference to a game of the era, but then nobody watching would know what they were talking about and it would need a clunky explanation. As I say though, a grey area, because a clearly modern reference would be a mistake.
8th Dec 2004
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Corrected entry: At the book signing in Berlin, the camera pans from right to left and the guard at the very end of the line of soldiers (to the left) has his left hand raised in military salute to Hitler. All the other soldiers have their right hands extended.
Correction: The person in question could have an injured right arm that he simply can't lift.
Exactly. "If physical disability prevented raising the right arm, it was acceptable to raise the left." Kershaw, Ian (2001). The "Hitler Myth": Image and Reality in the Third Reich. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0192802064.
There's nothing about it in the script though. So between the two options, on the one hand (no pun intended!) that the creators were aware of that fact, and on the other hand, that it was a movie mistake that wasn't noticed, well... There's no possible reason why they'd put that in deliberately. Still, Jon decides, and the rules seem to be that behavioural oddities are not generally considered mistakes.
But not every single bit of background extra behaviour gets detailed in the script. The point is simply that based on what we see there's no way to decree something like this as a "mistake", because it has a perfectly reasonable in-universe explanation, and there's no point having an endless chain of bickering about it.
So just to summarise: the "perfectly reasonable explanation" is, then, that some random bystander has an extremely convincing prosthetic arm (which serves no purpose at all for he story); and NOT that one of the many "extras" simply made a mistake.
13th Nov 2018
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: They didn't make it out of the cave with the grail because they dawdled... I wonder, would someone be able to make it out running at a dead sprint once they crossed the seal? And if so, does that mean that they're home free? Or would disaster follow them outside of the cave?
Answer: The implication is that disaster would follow them outside of the cave as well. It wouldn't make much sense if you could simply outrun the disaster.
"Followed by disaster" is a kind of curse, a thing not common in Christianity. It doesn't make much sense anyhow. A seal is just a dot - OK, so let's at least grant that the seal represents a circle that the grail has to stay in. Who decided where those borders are? The grail was taken there during the first crusade. That was closer to 1938 than it was to 33 AD. The three knights could move the grail about then. Why not afterwards? The knights could have built the traps. But the borders could only have been set by god, in an unusually late and completely atypical miracle.
There are several examples of curses in the Christian Bible: Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at Sodom, the plagues visited upon Egypt, Adam and Eve are cursed for eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, etc. The knights did not move the grail around after finding it, they stayed in the temple for 150 years and then two left leaving the third behind. The great seal and it's restriction was already in place when the knights got there.
Where in the movie is that stated? I interpreted the knight's story as them having made that place. Looks like it isn't actually specified. But if God made it, then I submit that he would have used Greek, not Latin, for the stepping stones. (All of those curses are from the old testament. The book where god kills firstborn children as long as they're Egyptian. Grail is by definition new testament where you turn the other cheek. There simply are no curses in the gospel, that's just not how Jesus rolled).
The tests were made by the knights, but the seal had God's power in it. Just like the cup.
It's still a bit dodgy. What if you take a shovel and dig yourself a back door? Basically this film really excels at stuff that makes no sense but helps the storytelling, or to be precise, creates dramatic effects.
Every fictional story is like that in some way. That's why it's called fictional. It's just a story.
Not a particularly convincing argument, "stuff happens for no reason all the time", if I may say so. Why is this website even here then? The fact is that some stories are more coherent than others. (♫ "In olden days, a hole in the plot, would seem to matter, quite a lot. Now heaven knows, anything goes..." ♫);).
It's the difference in what story they want told. Is it a fairy tale or based on actual events? A huge difference in plausibility between the two. The site is there to look at mistakes, not how believable the story is.
It is not set in another universe so plausibility isn't somehow suspended. Maybe take a look at the categories recognised by this website. Plot holes, factual errors, even stupidity. (They? Who are they?).
It is set in a fictional universe because it's not a true story. With "they" I mean the writers/director. Mistakes in a plot (plot holes) have nothing to do with how believable the story is. As long as it's plausible, it's not a mistake.
Pretty sure it's the same universe, just with some added characters/events. What about the total lack of spaceships or orcs or talking animals for example? The seal business is not a mistake YET, but it's very dodgy because no-one knows how it works or why. Like all Indys "trapped" secret places, it's (among other things) unclear who resets the traps for the next visitor. We can't brush it ALL off as "the hand of god" every time.
Huge amounts of stuff in films isn't exhaustively explained. Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that's perfectly believable. There's zero evidence either way to say how "followed by disaster" would manifest, and just because there's not a thorough explanation doesn't mean that it's "dodgy", and it's not worth bickering about either, because there's no concrete answer either way.
OK but I would like to note that not everyone who offers creative explanations has recently seen the movie; some people just invent their own. E.g. "followed by disaster" is not an actual explanation from the movie, it was just one of the suggestions made here and only here. Or the ones on my own question below. All I'm saying is, it's very hard to tell what the "rules" / "logic" of this place are supposed to be, so I understand what the OP was driving at.
5th Feb 2021
WandaVision (2021)
On a Very Special Episode... - S1-E5
Question: The intro sequence for this episode seems most closely based on Growing Pains, with a dash of Family Ties, but the painting being coloured in really reminds me of something else, I assume another TV show, but can't place it. Any inspiration?
Chosen answer: The living painting is taken straight from the Family Ties intro.
Ah, that makes sense - I first saw this one on Youtube, which at a guess was the first season or an early version? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPRdtO6UKD0. But yeah, this is exactly right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip1szfz9nZ8.
Answer: I noticed that too and although I can't think of any sitcom starting like that it does remind me strongly of Bob Ross "The Joy of Painting" intro, which was from the 80's as well.
8th Jan 2021
After We Collided (2020)
Trivia: This is the sequel to "After" (2019).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't trivia, especially since it stars the main cast of characters and is based on the sequel to the book.
Arguably, EVERYTHING is trivia.
No, anything obvious, common knowledge, or easily seen by viewers is NOT trivia. Also, things unrelated to the film or those involved is not trivia.
The "easily seen by viewers" is a bit of a grey area, because people (well, I) do read trivia listings before seeing a movie just for background info. But I agree that not everything can be trivia - it needs to be broadly of note, although granted that's highly subjective!
27th Aug 2001
The Matrix (1999)
Continuity mistake: When Trinity confronts the agent on the rooftop and says, "Dodge this", she points her gun to temple of the agent while his head is turned to her. He glances back, but never fully turns his head. The instant next shot shows him being shot facing Trinity with the gun in the middle of his forehead. (01:42:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually, I think that's correct and reflects how the agent 'took control' of his body. When he took on the pilot's form the pilot turns to the side in agony but the agents face actually appears from the side of his skull. So being shot in the temple then, would be consistent with a shot either to the front or the back of the head. In considering that the victim turn his head to the right when he was 'transformed' and given that agent was shot in the left temple, it would imply that the victim was actually shot in the back of the head? The would we saw should've been an exit wound, but it appeared to be an entry wound.
Not at all, all this occurs after the takeover has happened. The screenshot is pretty clear. He's facing forwards, gun at his temple, shot cuts and he's instantly facing Trinity, gun to his forehead.
Not at all, all this occurs after the takeover has happened. The screenshot is pretty clear. He's facing forwards, gun at his temple, shot cuts and he's instantly facing Trinity, gun to his forehead.
18th Dec 2020
The Mandalorian (2019)
Chapter 16: The Rescue - S2-E8
Other mistake: The highly advanced and powerful Dark Troopers, when faced with a closed blast door, punch it repeatedly with their fists rather than simply prying the two doors apart. Even having dented it slightly, they don't wedge their hands into the cracks to open it, they just keep slowly denting it...more.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The reason why the Dark Troopers didn't wedge their hands through the door was because during that time the door was already closed shut when they arrived at the bay door. If you watch at the beginning where Mando was trying to close the door before the Dark Troopers and exit their station but as Mando was closing the door the door wasn't fully closed but it was closing, so a Dark Trooper used its hand to open the door while the door was closing. If the door was closed then they would have punched their way through. And as you can see if you watch one dark trooper escaped but the others had to punch their way though.
Not my point. They manage to dent the door easily enough. So when faced with a closed door they could have made a dent, then put their hands into that crack to pull the sides apart. But they don't, they just keep slowly hammering it. They weren't punching through, just denting it, pointlessly.
The first Dark Trooper also punches the Mandalorian's helmet repeatedly instead of any other fighting move, and the Dark Troopers try to punch their way through the blast doors on the cruiser's bridge instead of cutting, tearing or shooting their way in. It seems their programming is limited in this way. This is still a mistake but it becomes a deliberate mistake or a character mistake.
16th Dec 2020
Countdown (2019)
Stupidity: Dr. Sullivan not only put unwelcome moves on Quinn, he mentioned the good or lush letter of recommendation he wrote for her - implying he deserved or was entitled to a sexual favor in return. For "Doctor" Sullivan to do and say what he did in this day and age isn't merely a "character mistake", it is outright stupidity. (00:25:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Stupidity entries are not for when characters do something stupid, otherwise everything in "Dumb and Dumber" would be mistakes. Stupidities are minor plot holes that extend beyond character mistakes. The fact that in real life people in power behave this way means it's something the character of Dr. Sullivan could do.
Dumb and Dumber is supposed to be stupid; a medical doctor is not.
You missed the point entirely. It's not a stupidity that a man in power thinks he can get away with sexual harassment, despite being a doctor.
I didn't assert that he thought he could get away with it - he was being stupid for even saying such a thing.
Regardless of if you asserted it or not, unless someone thinks it's not wrong, people do questionable or illegal things because they think they can get away with it. But characters are allowed to do stupid things without it always being a minor plot hole (i.e. a stupidity). A quick news search of doctors accused of sexual harassment will show half a dozen stories this year alone, showing that doctors in real life act this way, therefore, it's not a mistake for a character to do it.
It is still stupidity... and the doctors in your search were also stupid.
I'm not sure how you're not getting this, or if you're being pedantic on purpose. There was no plot hole for his actions. Therefore, no mistake exist and the correction is valid. Being stupid isn't a valid stupidity entry. Being stupid to serve the plot is though (e.g. writing a drug name on the arm instead of telling someone your plan). People submit mistakes incorrectly and as long as it's not wildly inappropriate or nonsensical, it will be posted. Which is why there is the option to submit a correction. To clarify, being stupid, not a mistake. A character doing something they wouldn't (possibly because of the writer's lack of knowledge), character mistake. A character doing something that doesn't make sense that mildly serves the plot, stupidity. Something done that contradicts the plot or what's been established in-film, plot hole.
I'm willing to modify "stupidity" to "utter stupidity." [I'm too ignorant to be insulted.].
Then you're on the wrong site and you should create your own site.
I'd like a second opinion.
I'll give my opinion and I agree with Bishop73. This sounds more like a character exerting hubris than stupidity. If he sexually harassed an underling in front an attorney or a judge, or even other employees, then I think it would rise to the level of being a stupidity. The current President of the United States has openly admitted to sexually assaulting women, and he did so out of hubris because as he claims, his celebrity status gives him carte blanche to do so.
Sorry to say I concur with Bishop73, in that people do stupid things all the time in films, and we can't list them all! The stupidity section is just for plot-related issues - sort of "movie logic" things, like running upstairs in a horror film when they should run out the door. Yes people might do that in reality, which would be stupid, but they do it in a movie solely because it helps the plot / narrative. It's not strictly a plot hole, and it's arguably even a "mistake", which is why they're listed separately. In this case yes what he does is stupid, but it's a stupid thing which people in authority in reality do often, it's not solely an unreasonable or unlikely stupid action for the sake of the plot, if that makes sense. I've also realised that's not made clear when submitting a "stupidity", which is an oversight on my part - I'll amend that.
17th Nov 2020
General questions
Why is it that recent movie adaptations of old TV shows (specifically Starsky and Hutch, Baywatch and 21 Jump Street) were turned into parodies? Why weren't any of them played straight?
Answer: Because the filmmakers of today view therm as parodies. I admit the writing and directing style is not as sophisticated as today's work, but they told good fun stories. Back then they tried to keep costs down by any means necessary.
Answer: It hedges bets in case the action doesn't work, studio can claim they meant for this all along. Also the Mission Impossible films are played straight.
Answer: I'm not claiming to know the definitive answer, but I suspect it is for the same reason there have been remakes of old movies: Hollywood is out of ideas for original movies, tries to keep a steady supply of releases to make money, and it is easier/quicker. Playing them "straight" would require creating a new, meaningful story which is much more demanding than "making fun" of something already done. Moreover, the old TV shows turned into movies probably will do better (make a higher profit) if the audience is not largely limited to the older generation who may have watched the old TV shows. Presumably, the younger generation doesn't find old TV shows appealing and may even already make fun of them. Others do not even know what the TV shows were about, so making a contemporary version would not have the same meaning (or nostalgia) for those viewers. Comedy is something all generations can enjoy... or find more interesting than a lame story about old TV characters who have been forgotten.
I'd concur with this - it's the "four quadrant" idea: movies which appeal to both male and female audiences, and both over - and under-25s. An action-comedy has broader appeal than a pure action/drama, and especially given the three examples referenced are viewed as somewhat cheesy throwbacks now, regardless of the appeal at the time, it makes sense to take a more light hearted approach. Miami Vice is once example that was played straight which could have been ripe for mockery - it got mixed reviews and didn't set the box office aflame.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: Sorry for posting an off-topic comment, but why are so few questions and mistakes posted anymore?
In large part it's reduced traffic, sadly - I'm always running a bit of a backlog of submissions (about 200 currently), because life gets in the way, but some get auto-approved so there's often a trickle of new content regardless. Mainly though it's just that thanks to search algorithm updates the site's now getting half to a third of the traffic it was about a year ago. I think also there are just fewer mistakes being made! Going back a while a DVD would come out and people would spot a lot of relatively obvious things. Now so many get fixed with CGI before release, and with streaming being wholly digital, lots of things are fixed even after release.
Jon Sandys ★
Thanks for all your hard work.
Brian Katcher
You're welcome! I've got no intentions of abandoning it, whatever the traffic. Still enough regular and irregular visitors to keep it trundling along!
Jon Sandys ★
I second that! Jon does an amazing job.
raywest ★
Thanks! I've got no intentions of abandoning it, whatever the traffic. Still enough regular and irregular visitors to keep it trundling along!
Jon Sandys ★
I have to assume it's just down to 1) maybe less people are submitting, and 2) the site primarily being run by one guy (Jon), and I have to imagine that he probably doesn't have the time to constantly check the site and do updates. I've noticed that sometimes it can take a while for things I submit to be posted, but they usually are within a week or two. To be fair, there's also been in excess of 600 mistakes posted within the last month, and I have around 60 mistakes waiting to be approved (going through the "Chucky" movies and shows looking for mistakes), so it's still happening... just a bit slower than it used to be back in the day.
TedStixon
I don't think it's a problem with fewer submissions. I've submitted several questions that have not made it onto the site yet, and mistakes were that were finally posted after an unusually long time.
I know there have been volunteers who do a lot of work here, but maybe that has dropped off.
raywest ★
Have been wondering the same thing.
raywest ★