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).
Jon Sandys
8th Jun 2018
The Terminator (1984)
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.
5th Jun 2018
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Corrected entry: At the end when the fuel is being refined Beckett is talking to Solo in the middle of what looks like pointed rocks coming out of the ground. On top of the rocks are metal loops - their only purpose must be for a crane to lift them into position for filming.
Correction: They're not random rocks - they've clearly been placed there, they're shaped regularly, they have smaller ones surrounding them, and they've got symbols carved onto them. At a guess it's a graveyard - as it's a specifically-arranged area it makes sense that they'd have loops on top as they'd have to be maneuvered into place somehow.
1st Feb 2018
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Corrected entry: During a mid-credit scene, while traveling in space en route to Earth, the Asgard refugees ship is ambushed by another colossal ship. This, however, should have not happened. Science fiction fans know that ships don't go gallivanting in empty space on conventional drives. Instead, they use a faster-than-light mode of travel method as "performing hyperspace jumps." Moreover, Asgard and Midgard (Earth) are two of the nine realms. There is one hyperspace jump between them. (02:04:00)
Correction: Stumbling upon something is not a mistake, whether in real life or in the movies.
Correction: Asgard and Earth are not one hyperspace jump away, just because you can get to earth in one step from Asgard using the bifrost. Secondly as seen in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 a ship has to go through a jump point in order to go into hyperspace which this ship is apparently not near one yet. We have also seen that ships require fuel and we can assume that when not in a hurry they will only drift until needed. We are also not aware of what this or Thanos' ship is capable of.
I didn't say anything about Bifrost and hyperspace being that same; and the fact that there is one jump point between the Midgard and Asgard is not my inference from this film. But all of these aside, ships still don't go gallivanting in empty space on conventional drives. Sanctuary II didn't pull them out of the hyperspace either. They were in empty space, doing pretty much nothing. Sanctuary II stumbled upon them. That's a mistake.
Stumbling upon something is not a mistake, whether in real life or the movies.
But gallivanting in empty space on conventional drives is a mistake, both in real life and movies.
They're not "gallivanting" - as the original correction stated, GotG2 showed you need jump points to travel significant distances, and the Asgardian ship is presumably en route to one when it's intercepted by Thanos.
They don't seem to be heading for a jump point. They seem to be totally aimless. "Presumably" is a word that renders this whole site purposeless; if it looks like a mistake, it is a mistake. Plus the first Captain America film and the first Thor film state that Midgard and Asgard are part of the nine realms connected by Yggdrasil (or, as Jane Foster puts it, an Einstein-Rosen wormhole).
"Presumably" is just as valid as "seems to be." :-) We have no clue as to their fuel status or intentions, beyond going to Earth...somehow. And as you repeatedly keep ignoring, GotG and indeed Thor 3 itself have demonstrated that interplanetary travel needs a jump point or a wormhole. As such at the very least they're making their way to one of those under conventional power, because what other option do they have? This isn't a mistake, it's pure conjecture. Just because space travel doesn't work in the MCU the same way it does in other sci-fi movies, that doesn't make it a mistake.
25th May 2010
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Corrected entry: I have to post this to refute the comment that denied the existence of an alternate ending. I was overjoyed to find a comment here from someone else who remembered seeing a different ending just one time in the 1960s. I've spent my whole life trying to find someone else who remembered this. In the 1960s the annual broadcast of the film had hosts. I, and two of my friends, ever since childhood always remembered that one year the movie had a different ending. I've always sensed it was the year that the hosts were Liza Minnelli and Lorna and Joey Luft. We never could remember what the different ending was, but we recalled that it was black and white and that our reaction was: It wasn't just a dream that time. Now that I've read this other person's memory of the camera's panning to the ruby slippers under the bed, in black and white, I remember that's what I saw. Another commenter says that there's no evidence that the scene ever existed. I am here to verify that someone else has never stopped wondering for over 40 years about a vague memory of a different ending from one airing in the 1960s.
Correction: https://criticsrant.com/mythbusters-dorothys-ruby-slippers/ This website gives some confirmation, it's one of those myths that get mixed up in people's memories to being convinced they have seen it. The WoZ original footage has been carefully preserved, it's not lost, if this footage made it to the final film for view; somebody would have posted it by now as the footage would still exist somewhere. It's possible you saw a skit or parody though that you mistook for the actual film. That would make sense.
Correction: This is called the "Mandela Effect" (aka 'collective false memory').
It's not a false memory, when I have never forgotten that night, only to find that someone else also remembered it. We may all be connected by our subconscious, but that's going a bit too far. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
But the nature of a collective false memory means just because two people remember something happening, doesn't mean it did! :-).
It's also possible you saw a parody or a different adaption of WoZ one time and it mixed up in your memory as being a part of the 1939 movie. There is no evidence of this ending ever being in the 1939 version. It's not in the script, there is no surviving imagery of it, and no other record of it whether through cast/crew memories or having been noted as a cut scene. Since we do have records of cut/altered scenes from WoZ, more than likely there would be record of this ending somewhere.
That's the exact definition of The Mandela Effect...multiple people having the same memory of something, even though it never happened. There are people who swear that the line in "Snow White" is "Mirror, mirror on the wall," when in fact it is, "Magic mirror on the wall." Just as there are people who are absolutely convinced that Sinbad was in a movie called "Shazaam."
I also remember this ending and it has driven me crazy over the years! I would stake my life on seeing the slippers under her bed. You are not alone, and I am glad I am not either.
Correction: I do remember seeing a different ending where the camera pans down and slippers are under the bed after Dorothy says, "there's no place like home." I saw it in the 80's at a classmates house, we were watching a rented VHS of the film at her birthday party. I even remember her mother saying she had never seen that part before.
Hi everyone, I would also like to include that I too, in the '60s, saw The Wizard of Oz with the ruby slippers under the bed. I told people for years about this, and no one else could remember the ending. So, I decided since we have the internet today, I would see if anyone else saw this alternative ending and am pleased to see that you have.
Correction: Have you ever watched the 1925 "Wizard of Oz" film? I haven't watched it and I don't know its history of being aired on TV. But it was shot in B&W and perhaps that's the version you watched (I'm not claiming it is or isn't though).
I'd say it can't be, if you peek at it (it's available on Youtube), the ending is completely different and wouldn't fit. Fascinating discussion, anyway! To the original poster; nobody means to disparage your memory, in fact we're trying to come up with possible explanations; it's pretty certain though that it can't be an official alternate ending, because we're talking about one of the most iconic and analyzed movies ever. Now it's all about figuring out what sort of clip did they play during that TV broadcast you seem to remember. And there's a gigantic wikipedia page just about the telecast alone. Perhaps it was a wraparound credits sequence?
It's not a pseudo memory at all. I remembered the same thing from the late sixties and have tried to find out for decades why it was just the one year as well and I saw it and remembered it before I ever saw others were trying to find out about it. Very strange but I have to agree that there should be a lot more people that remember it. I'm watching the movie again now and the memory came back again. When I searched I just now saw that others DO remember that different ending.
Thank you. I appreciate your saying that you're not trying to disparage my memory, but that is exactly what the responders are doing. Instead of trying to come up with explanations, maybe people should accept that they cannot prove a negative, and that just because they don't recall it and can't find a record doesn't mean I'm wrong. I don't want to keep repeating myself, I know what I saw, and my best friend (whom I did not meet until several years after) remembers it too.
No. I've never seen it.
Trivia: In the first take of Darth Vader and his troops entering the Rebel base, the lead troopers tripped, a stuntman stepped on the cape of David Prowse (Darth Vader), the cape tore free and Prowse fell on the troopers.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Well I for one didn't know about it, so it's interesting to know it happened. Behind the scenes stuff is generally valid trivia.
30th May 2016
The Crow (1994)
Corrected entry: When Eric tackles Tin Tin in the alley, we see him connect with Tin Tin. The shot then changes and he's about 3 foot away from Tin Tin and connects again. (00:19:00)
Correction: It's the same action shown again from a different angle, not a continuity error. This technique is used frequently with big climactic explosions too - we're not meant to assume an object exploded more than once. We're just seeing it happen multiple times.
Not always - trouble is with things like this they have to be judged on a case by case basis. Some repeated actions are sloppy editing, some are a directorial decision, so not even a "deliberate" mistake, they're just showing the same thing a couple of times for impact.
15th Apr 2018
Lost in Space (2018)
Corrected entry: The chariots are electric vehicles (they need to recharge in the sunlight), but they have rev counters. Electric vehicles don't have a rev counter, and even if they did, an electric motor moving the wheels at 9000 rpm would cause the car to move at a ridiculous speed.
Correction: Supposition: we don't know what the future's technology will bring, so mechanical improvements are certainly within possibility.
Regardless of any mechanical improvements, an electric motor spinning the wheels of a vehicle at 9,000 RPM (assuming the wheel's circumference is 1 meter as an understatement), the chariot would be moving at 150 m/s or 500 km/h. The specified in the show that they move at about 35 mph.
You're also entirely discounting the idea of gearing, as used in conventional engines. Without knowing the schematics and internal workings, we can't assume that the electric motor (s) are directly connected to the wheels as they are in modern electric vehicles.
It would appear you two are arguing apples and oranges. If the rev counter is measuring rotations of some undefined motor function, then gearing could make a difference. If, as the original comment states, it is measuring wheel rotation, then that would be post-gearing and the speed issue would be correct.
Looking at the dash board it has two gauges, RPM and Km/H. Also a "4W" "Diff Lock" "H4" indicators, from what I have seen so far about the tech crew of this production, they lack "tech." Those indicators are for standard single engine 4WD. I would say no attempt has been made, when designing the chariot prop, for any proper electric vehicle technology to be researched. Eg, 4 wheel motors.
17th Apr 2002
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Continuity mistake: When Waco Kid is lying down on hay bales at the end of the film, there is no horse. All of a sudden when he's invited somewhere by Sheriff Bart, a horse appears. (01:33:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is true that the horse suddenly appears, but Jim is reclined on hay bales, not boxes.
For future reference, this is what the "change the entry's wording" option is for.
This entry is about the sudden appearance of a horse. It has nothing to do with The Waco Kid reclining on boxes nor does the entry say he was reclining on boxes. It says that he's reclining on bales of hay.
It did say bales of hay - I've left the correction and "change wording" comment online for a bit for informational purposes.
9th Jun 2008
Iron Man (2008)
Corrected entry: When Stark escapes from his captors wearing the first Iron Man suit, towards the end of the scene he is shot up by a .50 caliber machine gun. Those bullets would have gone straight through the improvised suit, which is only made of those common metals that Stark had access to in the cave and weapons cache, and out the other side.
Correction: We don't know how the suit is designed. He had access to a great deal of advanced technology, as the reason he was there was to build an advanced weapon. He obviously designed the suit with the intention of repelling the weapons he knew they had.
Stark may have had access to a great deal of access to advanced technology, but the only metals he had were metals that are relatively common on earth. Metals that are relatively common on earth are not strong enough to stop bullets from a 50 caliber machine gun bullets, and there is no way to melt common metals on earth, and mix them to create an alloy strong enough to stop 50 caliber machine gun bullets even with advanced technology.
And there's no way to make an arc reactor either, or create much of the technology we see in the movies. Ultimately some degree of suspension of disbelief is necessary.
22nd Jun 2008
South Park (1997)
Corrected entry: If Mrs. Garrison hands out real eggs to the kids to use, wouldn't the eggs get rotten after not being refrigerated?
Correction: Unwashed eggs don't need to be refrigerated - in the UK at least, they're sold and stored at room temperature. If these eggs were freshly laid they'd last just fine.
Correction: With all the scientific improbabilities & impossibilities that occur within this series, it is very doubtful.
25th Apr 2017
Logan (2017)
Corrected entry: When Logan, Laura and the professor are driving towards the horse trailer notice the red tractor trailer coming towards them. It is the rear end of the truck (there is no rig and you can actually see the mud flaps in front of the tires.) It looks as if the truck is driving down the highway backwards. (01:08:30)
Correction: Both ends of the trailer are the same - these are self-driving vehicles, hence no need for a driver's cab at the front. They're basically just containers on wheels. We occasionally hear them making warning announcements in the background.
9th Dec 2016
American Pie 2 (2001)
Corrected entry: Stifler starts telling the two "lesbians" the story about how he accidentally drank a beer full of semen in the first film. However, he says "One time at this party, I was drinking champagne..."
Correction: He's referring to the scene at the start of this movie, where he thinks a girl is pouring champagne on him, but it's actually John Cho above, urinating off the balcony.
20th Jun 2016
The Conjuring 2 (2016)
Corrected entry: Old man hums "I love you", the Barney song, released in 1998. Movie takes place in 1977.
Correction: The tune is the same as that from "This Old Man", an older song. Http://barney.wikia.com/wiki/This_Old_Man.
14th Jun 2016
The Pacific (2010)
Corrected entry: When the episode cuts to the Iwo Jima invasion, the screen caption states "February 1945/D-Day, Iwo Jima." D-Day was the June 6th, 1944 invasion of Normandy Beach in France, NOT the invasion of Iwo Jima. You'd think they could get such a well known, crucial piece of the history that this miniseries is about, correct. (00:41:10)
Correction: D-Day, while most commonly used to refer to the Normandy landings, is actually a general military term, like H Hour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Day_(military_term).
26th Mar 2016
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Corrected entry: Batman has 3 minutes to change out of his armour, get in the Batwing, find out where Martha is being held, fly there, beat up all the bad guys guarding her, and then save her - no chance.
Correction: He seems to get out of his armour and into the Batwing quickly, but we just don't see him making the change. We see the timer at 10 minutes when he's already in flight - given he just has to fly across the harbour, and clears out the bad guys fairly swiftly and in mostly real time, he's got enough time to do it.
Correction: We only know two pieces of time data: Luthor tells Clark he has, "less" than an hour when he leaves him on the Helipad. At one point before the fight starts we see the clock has about 30 minutes on it. And when Batman arrives he has 10 minutes left. The complete passage of time is not charted but we are shown how much time is left at various points.
20th Apr 2004
The Punisher (2004)
Corrected entry: In the beginning of the movie when Saint's men are shooting the Castle family, there is a scene where one of the family members tries to ride off on a motorcycle. One of Saint's men shoots him in the back and he falls off next to the bike. Later on Frank runs over to the bike and takes off on it, but in the long shot of Frank running to the motorcycle, the body is gone.
Correction: The shot of the bike coming to a stop, with the body a short distance away, shows the body about 10 feet to the left of the bike. The shot of Castle running towards it is from behind the bike, and columns and curtains are blocking the view of where the body is.
15th Sep 2014
Dave (1993)
Corrected entry: When Bob Alexander and Alan Reed run into Tip O'Neill on the street, they refer to him as "Mr. Speaker." However, later in the film, at the joint session of Congress, the Speaker of the House is not Mr. O'Neill, but an actor.
Correction: Tip O'Neill had already long-since retired by the time this film came out - calling him "Mr. Speaker" is just a mark of respect, the same way past presidents are still referred to as "Mr. President."
28th May 2014
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Corrected entry: In "The Wolverine", the Silver Samurai completely melted out Wolverine's adamantium claws and his bone claws returned. Yet in the scenes in this movie that take place after these events, Wolverine is shown back with his adamantium claws.
Correction: The only scenes set after The Wolverine are set many years in the future, with plenty of time for Wolverine to have had the adamantium reapplied to his claws.
4th Dec 2013
Rise of the Guardians (2012)
Corrected entry: When Pitch destroys Tooth's land Santa suggest that the guardians become the new fairies. Tooth then says that they would have visit 7 continents and billions of kids. Why would they visit Antarctica if no one lives on it.
Correction: From Wikipedia: Several Antarctic bases are now home to families, with children attending schools at the station. In 2009, eleven children were born in Antarctica.
27th Oct 2013
How I Met Your Mother (2005)
Right Place Right Time - S4-E22
Corrected entry: When the first error in Barney's list is discovered, they come to the conclusion that he's only slept with 198 women, so Marshall's previous figure of a 1.195913451538% success rate is slightly off. Marshall says that Barney's "only half a percent less gross than we thought." But using 198 girls in Marshall's equation results in a success rate of 1.18990461538%, which is nowhere near a difference of 0.5%.
Correction: 1.1959% minus half a percent is 1.1899%, ie. fitting exactly with what Marshall says. Subtracting 0.5 wouldn't be half a percent, as 0.5 is a large proportion of 1.1959 (42%, in fact).
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.