Revealing mistake: When Luke is being fed to the Rancor, in Jabba the Hutt's dungeon, there are black outlines around the beast's legs, from the composite's blue screen special effect. This was edited out in the special edition rerelease.
raywest
2nd Jun 2005
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This was not a "mistake". The outlines showing around the beast's leg were due to the limited CGI technology at the time the film was made. With advances in special effects in the following decades, the filmmakers were able to enhance the CGI quality in later releases.
But it is a mistake to show that the Rancor is not real, and the outlines show that. It's certainly not intentional.
Not sure what you mean that the rancor is not real. Of course it's not real. The issue is, at that time, it was not technically possible to show the beastie without the lines showing. I classify a mistake as something that was not intentional. In this case, it was, due to the limitations of CGI in the 1980s.
21st Apr 2024
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Question: Ron's wand gets broken, and for the rest of the year, he has to use it even though it doesn't cast spells properly. Why doesn't the school just get Ron a new wand? His parents can't afford one because of how expensive they must be, but surely one of the teachers could take him to Ollivander's and help him get another one.
Answer: I agree with what RayWest said. Another possible factor is that Ron damaged his wand when the flying car crashed into the Whomping Willow, which upsets the Hogwarts staff and Ron's parents. I can imagine Mrs. Weasley wanting him to deal with the consequences of his actions for the rest of the school year.
Answer: It's not the school's responsibility to provide equipment for students. It can be humiliating for a student and the family to receive charity. It also sets a precedent for Hogwarts having to supply any number of things for students, and creates a situation where they could be taken advantage of. Realistically, this is a book plot point. It may not be logical, but the story would not play out and end as it does if Ron had a proper wand.
28th Feb 2016
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)
Other mistake: When the boat that Willy Wonka and the passengers are riding on is heading for the tunnel through the river of chocolate, two crewmen are cranking the paddle wheel. The wheel is in an opening in the middle of the deck. As the paddle is rotating, moving the boat through the river, the blades are always clean and dry and never have any chocolate on them whatsoever. Also the paddle is rotating the wrong way. It should be rotating clockwise.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
19th Mar 2024
General questions
What exactly is the "lowest common denominator" audience? I've heard people say this when they think a movie or show is bad - that it was made for the "lowest common denominator." But why would studios/networks deliberately make something that the majority of people will not like?
Answer: It's actually the reverse - the lowest common denominator audience is meant to be the simplest, least demanding, lowest-expectations audience. Basically an audience that might want some special effects or a generic sexy plot, without being that bothered about creativity, artistic merit, etc. The broad idea is that that covers quite a large section of the population, just not a "highbrow" section. It's often applied to films or shows that might have a high commercial appeal (but not always) but get low critical ratings. Some/all of the Transformers films might fall into this category, for example. The people who like them really like them, but a lot of people don't, and they don't get good reviews, but still make a lot of money.
There is also a segment of "guilty pleasure" viewers. Unlike the lowest common denominator, they claim to be aware that a movie/show is poor quality, however, they get a smug satisfaction from watching. Low-budget thriller movies and "trashy" reality shows are good examples. Many people will watch those "ironically" and believe that they are superior to the audience ("I'm smart enough to know better"). Networks probably have these viewers in mind, too.
Totally agree with your assessment, but would add that many moviegoers prefer familiar and predictable plots because they think they've figured everything out, know "who did it," who ends up with the girl, that the hero saves the day, and so on, without realizing they've seen the same story in dozen of movies. I have friends like this who only want to watch one or two types of movies (romantic comedies for women and action/superhero movies for guys) where they don't have to think too hard about the plot. It's also formulaic. Hollywood knows what audiences like and will make the most money. They rehash familiar plots with minor changes, knowing it sells to the widest audience.
21st Mar 2024
Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (1993)
Question: Whenever Clark uses his X-ray vision, why does he lower his glasses? Lowering them when he uses heat vision is understandable but there's no need to do it when Clark uses X-ray vision.
Answer: I don't recall if it was ever mentioned in an episode, but it's possible that the frames and/or lenses of his glasses are lined with lead, the one compound his X-ray vision can't penetrate. Speculative, of course, but it likely would have been done at a point in his youth when he wasn't in complete control of his powers.
23rd Feb 2024
Ronin (1998)
Question: What is the most likely explanation for what was in the case?
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.
Thanks for all your hard work.
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!
Thanks! I've got no intentions of abandoning it, whatever the traffic. Still enough regular and irregular visitors to keep it trundling along!
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.
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.
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.
28th Jan 2024
Masquerade (1988)
Plot hole: At Tim's funeral, Olivia's attorney tells her that Tim had himself removed from Olivia's Last Will and Testament, proving he loved her and didn't want her money. However, an attorney could not legally change a client's Will without that person's knowledge and drafting a revised version.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not true. Anyone can have themselves removed as a beneficiary of a will. This is done by signing an Affidavit of Disclaimer of Inheritance at such time as someone becomes aware that they have been included in a will as a beneficiary. This is what Tim meant when he said he had removed himself from Olivia's will.
8th Jan 2024
Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
Question: Why didn't the Japanese just cut the rope net off the cliff side to prevent the Americans from climbing up and attacking? Common sense would have been to inhibit their advance any way they could.
Answer: I'd classify it as a deliberate mistake or choice on the moviemakers' part. It fit the plot to have it play out that way and have the Japanese being attacked.
A deliberate mistake is something like using an 8-month-old baby as a newborn, something done intentionally for filming purposes. Writing in a plot contrivance isn't a deliberate mistake. At best, it could be considered a character mistake if it's something a real person would do in the character's position or a stupidity, a stupid act by a character for the sake of the plot.
It was a plot mechanic. Unfortunately, resulting in a massive, obvious plot hole.
17th Jun 2015
Friends (1994)
The One with Mrs. Bing - S1-E11
Question: When we first see Mrs Bing on TV, Jay Leno mentions that she recently got arrested and asks how it came about. Her response is "occasionally, after being intimate with a man, I just get a craving for Kung Pao chicken" This gets a lot of cheers and laughter from the audience and Chandler shouts "that's too much information!" at the TV. What was happening here? Why does what Mrs Bing said get so much of a reaction from everyone and not answer the question she was asked? Am I missing something?
Answer: This is a story about how Chandler's mom got arrested. So she is saying "after being intimate with a man I get a craving for Kung Pao Chicken." So what she is implying is that she is intimate with whomever, and immediately afterwards when orders Kung Pao Chicken. By this she is saying she got arrested at the place where they sell Kung Poa Chicken, because she was being intimate with the individual there. Conclusion she was openly having sex at a Chinese Restaurant.
Answer: I've seen a few answers that are similar to this. It's really unclear to me what the relation to being arrested is and/or why it's too much information. I feel like I'm missing a connection here.
Chosen answer: Nora Bing's remarks got a huge response by her being funny and making the incident about sex. Audiences tend react to titillating anecdotes. Chandler, of course, is always mortified by his mother for not acting her age and being sexually uninhibited.
This answers nothing really.
Answer: I honestly think part of it has been deleted since the original broadcast. I remember her saying something extra that carried on the joke, but watching it on streaming services, it isn't there.
17th Nov 2023
Inside Man (2006)
6th Dec 2023
Fatal Attraction (1987)
Question: If Alex was being honest about being pregnant with his child and wanting Dan to take responsibility for it, then why didn't she just make an appointment with the authorities? If the child was proven to come from him, then surely he would be required to support it by law, at the very least financially.
Answer: Alex is completely mentally unstable. She doesn't just want child support or a legal acknowledgement of paternity. She wants Dan, and she wants him all to herself.
Is it possible that she was not even pregnant? (I have not re-watched the movie recently, so apologies if I forgot something.) There are a couple of online discussions about this.
Of course, that was possible. I'd wondered about it too. She was either lying to trap him or allowed herself to get pregnant. The chances of her being pregnant were slim, however, since they basically had a one-night stand. She could also have gotten pregnant by somebody else. My own opinion is she was not pregnant, at least not with Dan's child.
That's true. However, they do say in behind the scenes though the her becoming pregnant was to be a motive to not move on from Dan. Though they probably decided to make it ambiguous. Though I'd say she's at least pregnant given the way she vomits unexpectedly when watching Dan and his family.
30th Oct 2023
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: A question that has been nagging me for so long: When the trio is chased by the Snatchers, why don't they just disapparate?
Answer: Apparition is not an easy spell to use. Wizards are only allowed to apparate at age 17 and are given lessons from that age. Ron definitely has never apparated before, only Harry and Hermione. It's highly unlikely they would have been able to take Ron along with apparition (side-along apparition) in the stressful situation without danger. If you do it wrongly, you get what is called "splinching," meaning parts of your body won't arrive at the destination. Ron already has injuries because of that. So, in short, it's too dangerous for them to try to apparate out of the situation.
Ron took the Apparating class at Hogwarts with Harry and Hermione. He failed his first license exam only because an overly-strict Ministry tester noticed he splinched some eyebrow hairs. Ron most certainly became practiced at it while hunting the Deathly Hallows. A hasty exit can be dangerous, however, as when Hermione hastily apparated herself, Harry, and Ron to escape the Ministry of Magic and is how Ron got his shoulder splinched.
Answer: I've wondered the same thing. There's no explanation, but it could be argued they were just panicked when the Snatchers took them by surprise. For all their abilities, they are still kids and occasionally lack critical thinking and failed to have a fallback plan for such an event or if they somehow became separated. Of course, it serves the plot as the story needs for them to be transported to Malfoy Manor. You should submit this as a plot hole.
I think even adults can panic in scary situations and not think of something that seems like an obvious solution. I've read online "tips" for getting away from muggers/robbers, but when I was actually shot by one, none of those came to mind.
In one of the books, Mr. Weasley says that many adult wizards don't apparate. It needs to be precise and it feels uncomfortable. Some would rather use a Portkey or fly on a broomstick.
22nd May 2014
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 (2012)
Corrected entry: In the letter from Bella to Renesmee she says Jacob can teach her Ticuna legends, but he's not Ticuna. Jacob is a member of the Quileute tribe.
Correction: Bella did not make a mistake, The Cullens learn that there may be information about half-mortal, half-vampire children within the Ticuna culture. What Bella means (and she is assuming she and the other Cullens will be killed by the Volturi) is that Jacob, as Renesmee's protector, will be able to discover more about this and can then share that with Renesmee. It will help disprove the Volturi's accusation that she is an "immortal child."
They did not know about that at the time Bella wrote the letter to Renesme. She was preparing a backpack with money and passport with the thought Jacob would be taking her somewhere mid battle. They didn't know about Tacuna tribe until the very end of battle scene.
19th May 2023
General questions
Are there any TV series that were cancelled before a complete first season was even aired? I am mostly curious about sitcoms and dramas/thrillers, not reality shows.
Answer: Honestly, there have been numerous TV shows cancelled before a complete first season was aired. Another great example is cult-favorite sci-fi series "Firefly," which was cancelled before the 14 produced episodes finished airing. "Emily's Reasons Why Not" is another good example. It's a romantic comedy series that was cancelled after only one of the six produced episodes aired. (The remaining five episodes never aired on TV, but were quietly released on a DVD set.) "Viva Laughlin," a musical comedy-drama series produced by Hugh Jackman was cancelled after only two episodes, and none of the remaining episodes have aired or been given a DVD release. "Mockingbird Lane," a re-imagining of "The Munsters," was cancelled after it's pilot was aired as a TV-special, so the remainder of the first season was never produced. There's honestly probably hundreds of shows that were cancelled before a complete first season was aired.
I was wondering if there are contracts that require the entire first season to be shown, before a network can decide not to show another season. I guess not, based on the answers here.
Shows being pulled mid-season isn't indicative of what other shows' contracts consist of. Some shows may have had it in their contracts that the entire season be aired (there are shows that get pulled mid-season beyond season 1). I don't have personal knowledge because that would be a lot of contracts to read to find out. So maybe someone does. But there's plenty of shows that don't produce an entire season prior to being picked up, so it's possible all the episodes produced were aired.
Answer: So, so many. Drive comes to mind - Nathan Fillion thriller about an illegal road race, only had a few episodes before being pulled off air. "Selfie" (2014) with Karen Gillan and John Cho was cancelled by ABC after only 7 episodes. "Do No Harm" (2013) cancelled after 2 episodes. The Dictator (2012) starring Christopher Lloyd only had one episode.
Answer: One of the shortest TV shows ever was the 1997 series "Lawless," starring former NFL player Brian Bosworth. It was cancelled after the first episode. Also, "Cop Rock," a TV show in the 90s, was cancelled after only 11 episodes. "When The Whistle Blows," a TV sitcom in the 80s, also only lasted 11 episodes.
Answer: There was a police drama roughly 10 years ago called Golden Boy. It was about the youngest police Commissioner in NYPD history and kept hinting at a department-wide shootout that led to the man's promotion. It lasted 13 episodes.
Answer: Another show was called "Brimstone" and had actors Peter Horton and John Glover. The show only had 13 episodes.
The 1963 ABC "The Jerry Lewis Show" was originally planned for 40 episodes in the first season. It went off after 13 shows.
Answer: Outlaws 1986, was cancelled after a few episodes. Sitcom In Case of Emergency, with Kelly Hu, was cancelled after only a couple of episodes.
6th May 2023
General questions
When movies or TV shows are filmed on location, how do they manage to film a scene without interference from the local public?
Answer: They will typically have areas closed off. If it is filmed in an area with heavy pedestrian traffic, there will be notices displayed that anyone in the area could end up on camera and is giving consent to be filmed by being in the area. The film crew will have security measures in place to prevent people from disrupting the production.
Your description is accurate, though I once wandered into a scene of the TV show, "Northern Exposure," that was filming in Seattle. I didn't realise I was in the shot. The film crew didn't notice me. When the director yelled, "Action", I just walked away. I've also driven by several movies filming on the street with traffic passing through, such as "Sleepless in Seattle." I drove by Meg Ryan who was in a car. Tom Hanks was on the beach. Was commuting to work as "Fifty Shades Freed" filmed a car chase on the now-gone Alaskan Way Viaduct. Traffic was temporarily stopped during filming.
Answer: Some big budget shows like the Law and Order franchise have recorded outside scenes with green screens to block out the public but keep natural lighting, building exteriors, sidewalks etc. They add a nondescript city background later.
22nd Sep 2023
Casper (1995)
Question: What kind of hairstyle is Fatso wearing when he pretends to be Amelia?
Answer: The style looks similar to an updo with the Rockabilly Curl or Victory Roll at the top.
It doesn't look like any pompadour I've seen.
25th Oct 2018
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
Question: After finishing the game, did Spencer, Fridge, Bethany, and Martha still have detention or did changing the timeline prevent them from their punishment?
Answer: They still had detention. The only thing that changed was Alex. But since they had become such close friends, detention would hardly be a punishment for them anymore.
It seemed like they just simply walked out of detention. I mean, did they finish their detention or did they have to continue on a Saturday?
The movie doesn't explain. But regardless, it also really doesn't matter.
They probably didn't go back on Saturday. When they go back to school, Spencer acts like he hasn't spoken to Martha since their adventure, while Bethany says she's been texting Martha 'all weekend'.
26th Aug 2023
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Question: How is it possible that Harry has no problems with trusting Alastor Moody in this movie? At the end of the previous movie, he discovered that "Moody" was an evil imposter who conspired against him. He only saw the real Moody briefly when he was trapped inside his trunk and didn't even interact with him. So how come he isn't distrustful/suspicious towards him if he barely knows him?
Answer: How can Harry trust anyone, knowing they could be a Polyjuice imposter? The rest of The Order of the Phoenix trust Moody, and that has to be enough for Harry.
But in the book, he remembers that "Moody" was fake.
And was caught and replaced with the real Moody.
Still, it would have made much more sense if Harry said, "Professor Moody? Is that really you?" and Moody replied, "Yes, it's really me, the real Alastor Moody, not this cheap imposter."
Answer: Agree with the other answer, but would add that any evil wizard attempting to gain proximity to Harry by using Polyjuice potion would be unlikely to impersonate "Mad-Eye" Moody, as the real one would now be closely scrutinized and vetted by the Order.
But there is another issue. Harry acts as if he knew Moody very well, despite never interacting with him before.
As mentioned, Harry was present when the real Moody was rescued at the end of "Goblet of Fire." He likely had interaction with him immediately following that event and then later, even though it's not shown on screen. He also knows Moody by his colourful reputation and that Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix fully trust him.
He didn't interact with Moody in the previous movie because Moody was in a bad mental state due to being trapped for a whole year. It took Moody some time to recover from this trauma.
19th Sep 2019
Sleeping with the Enemy (1991)
Plot hole: Laura rents a nice, large house, furnished with everything she needs, using a fake name, no job, no financial history, has no current bank account or credit cards or any references. She merely hands cash to the agent. She later lands a job without proof of identity, citizenship or residency (legally required), and has no references, no credible work history, or a SSN#. Laura is resourceful, but would lack the means to obtain a convincing fake identity and other false documentation.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You don't have to be a citizen to work.
You do need an ID, but you don't need to be a citizen.
You need to be a U.S. citizen, a "legal" resident, or have a specific type of work visa to be legally employed in this country. You also need an identity for renting a house or apartment and a prospective tenant doesn't just hand over a large sum of cash for the rent/damage deposit without immediately getting a receipt, while standing on the porch, and not first filling out paperwork.
20th Aug 2023
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Question: After the incident at the zoo, on Dudley's birthday, Harry is restricted to his cupboard until after the summer holidays start (see beginning of Chapter Three). If Dudley's birthday is before the holidays, then why does Mrs. Figg normally watch Harry that day (except this year)? Any year when Dudley's birthday was not on a weekend, Harry could have simply gone to school as usual.
Answer: Harry has already experienced a few magical incidents, as children from Muggle families usually do. For example, changing a teacher's wig hair to a blue color. If Dudley's birthday is on a school day, his parents probably don't want the risk of a problem at school. It's easier to make Harry stay with Mrs. Figg all day.
Answer: As I recall, Mrs. Figg had broken her leg so she was unable to watch Harry. The Dursleys were then forced to take Harry to the zoo for Dudley's birthday.
That is not the question. The question is why she has been watching Harry every other year, except for this time (due to her injury). If Dudley's birthday happens before the summer holidays begin, why has she been watching Harry during the years when Dudley's birthday is a school day? Harry could have just gone to school.
Thank you for clarifying as your original question was rather confusing. I was assuming that Dudley's birthdays were not celebrated on an actual school day, but later on the weekends and that is why Mrs. Figg watched Harry. I don't think Dudley would be staying home from school every year on his B-Day.
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.