Question: How can their house still be standing in 2004 when it was destroyed in 1994? Even if they rebuilt it it wouldn't look s old, it would only be a few years old.
raywest
13th Jan 2023
Timecop (1994)
Answer: In one of the flashbacks, it is shown that the wife designed the house and had been thinking about it for a long time. I think the easiest answer to this is: the house was simply rebuilt the same as it was.
Answer: My understanding was the timeline had been reset in such a way that the explosion had never happened.
Except that the explosion did happen. When Max carries Melissa out of the house to prevent her death again, their house is exploding in the background. This is because McComb had placed a bomb in the house to ensure that the explosion would kill Max which of course had ultimately failed.
The explosion happened, but it was before Max returned to his own time in the future. Once he went back through the time portal, everything somehow reset itself to before the bomb being detonated. The previous events in the past were erased in favor of an alternate timeline. The movie does not attempt to give a logical explanation, and it makes no sense, as most time-travel stories never do, but a "suspension of disbelief" is employed here. We're supposed to accept that it happened. Max is the only character who knows what the previous timeline was like, but he now has no idea of current events (like his wife and son being alive) in his alternate life during the intervening time from when he was in the past and returns to the "new" present.
4th Jan 2023
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: How was Umbridge able to cast a patronus?
Answer: She casts it like any other witch or wizard by using her wand and saying "Expecto Patronum". It is considered advanced magic, but most magical people can learn how to do this. When Harry (disguised as Runcorn) entered her courtroom, she had already cast her cat patronus to keep the Dementors at a distance.
Casting a patronus requires a very happy memory, though. And considering that she seems to be very angry and never felt that she was given enough power, she must have never had a happy memory.
"Must" is total conjecture. Perfectly possible for an angry resentful person to have one happy memory to call on.
Villains still have personalities. Depending on what specifically makes Umbridge happy, she could easily have a lot of happy memories.
Umbridge seemed quite happy while torturing Harry with the punishment pen, when she was ejecting Trelawney from Hogwarts, when she ousted Dumbledore as Headmaster, happy in her devotion to Voldemort, and so on. Happiness is an individual thing. Her sense of happiness was quite perverse.
Only those who are pure of heart are capable of producing a Patronus. Those who aren't would be devoured by maggots that shoot out of the caster's wand. Umbridge wasn't pure of heart because of all of the horrible things she did, so shouldn't she have been eaten by maggots?
18th May 2022
Doctor Strange (2016)
Question: When Strange is surgically removing the bullet from the patient's brain, why did he ask the one doctor to cover his wristwatch?
Answer: I took it to mean Dr. Strange could hear the watch ticking, and he wanted complete silence.
29th Mar 2015
Poltergeist (1982)
Question: What exactly did the ghosts want with Carol Anne?
Answer: They were partly attracted to Carol Anne because she she was born in her house.
4th Sep 2022
Taken (2008)
Question: How did the bad guys manage to sneak Kim and Amanda out of the apartment without being noticed?
Answer: In addition to the other answer, it's likely that, since they always bring girls to the same apartment for the kidnappings, they have a deal with the owners of the place to look the other way and provide them an escape route free from observers.
5th Oct 2022
Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)
Question: Why didn't Dumbledore apprehend Grindelwald at the end? He saw the blood pact was broken, and he had loads of backup, instead he just walks off and lets him escape.
Answer: Dumbledore, as a Hogwarts professor, did not have any legal authority to apprehend Grindelwald or anyone else. That was up to the magical authorities. Also, this was meant to be a four-part (and possibly five-part) movie series that continued the story leading up to Dumbledore and Grindelwald's final duel. The third movie underperformed financially, so the further sequels were cancelled, leaving the storyline incomplete.
But in the Crimes of Grindelwald, Travers - Head of Magical Law Enforcement for the Ministry personally asks Dumbledore to fight Grindelwald. Then immediately after in the film loads of people attack Grindelwald including Kama who doesn't work for any magical authority?
25th Sep 2022
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Question: Why did Lily never accept Snape's apology for calling her a mudblood? He never meant it as it was said in the heat of the moment.
Answer: I think it was Hermione who said "it's the worst thing you can say. It means dirty blood" Lily is deeply hurt by Snape saying it. It's similar to a modern day argument. Some things just can't be taken aback.
Answer: Remember how enraged Ron got when someone called Hermione that? I get the impression 'mudblood' is the wizarding equivalent of the N word, and there are just some things you can't take back.
This is a good answer. It also should be noted Snape was already on thin ice with Lily as he was into dark arts, showed signs of intent to become a death eater, not to mention according to Lily he had been calling others of her birth the same name. This was the straw that broke the camel's back for her.
Answer: Rather than "heat of the moment", it was more like "the straw that broke the camel's back." Snape was friends with other pure-blood supremacists, who would later become Death Eaters. They bullied Muggle-borns. In the book, she asks him: "But you call everyone of my birth 'Mudblood', Severus. Why should I be any different?" Essentially, Snape had chosen his supremacist friends over her. He refused to stop joining in their behavior.
12th Jul 2010
Sex and the City (1998)
Pick-a-little, talk-a-little - S6-E4
Corrected entry: After Miranda and Paul have a successful dinner date, he abruptly ends the night and tells her he has to get home. Miranda finally gets Paul to admit the truth, and he informs her that he has diarrhea and goes running off in a hurry along the sidewalk towards home. But if Paul was in that much gastrointestinal distress that he has to end a date and rush home, why wouldn't he just go back inside the restaurant and use their bathroom? They are standing right outside the restaurant, and it would have been much faster and more convenient than having to wait until he got home. (00:19:25)
Correction: Paul was obviously embarrassed by having to answer "nature's call," no matter how urgent. It was an awkward situation, and this being their first date, he likely did not want Miranda to know about his sudden need for a bathroom. Considering his predicament, he may have wanted to avoid using the restaurant's facilities under those circumstances.
This makes no sense. If the need was that bad, it's more important to find a nearbye restroom than worry about how your 'date' feels. There is no shame, guilt, or embarrassment in having to use a bathroom on a date. Many people do, and mention it out loud. It is irrational to risk extreme discomfort having to wait an extended period of time in those circumstances, rather than just go back inside the restaurant. He could have waited until his date left to do so, if necessary. But it's not a big deal to just go back inside.
27th Feb 2015
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: Why does Dumbledore purposely hit Ron's injured leg?
Answer: Ron had previously bragged to Hermione about how bad his leg was injured, and had lied and said his leg might be chopped off. When Dumbledore later hits Ron's leg, he is saying that a child's voice no matter how honest and true. He is giving Ron a little payback for exaggerating.
Highly unlikely Dumbledore knew what Ron told Hermione at the Whomping Willow. Ron's leg was seriously hurt, so he wasn't "bragging" about it, nor did he lie. Ron, who is a bit of a hypochondriac, was simply embellishing to be more dramatic and to gain Hermione's sympathy. Hardly anything Dumbledore would consider worth giving him "payback" by inflicting pain.
2nd Sep 2022
Passengers (2016)
Question: Laurence Fishburne is obviously a person who would be familiar with the workings of the entire spacecraft. Wouldn't he have known that the Autodoc had the capability of putting a person back into hibernation? Why wouldn't he have informed Aurora of this after being told that she was purposely awakened?
Answer: I suspect he was too busy with fixing the ship and his own health.
He's a technician, not a medical person, and likely had no idea if the autodoc could safely keep someone in suspended animation for long periods. It is also possible he may not have known it even had this particular function.
You can't call a service rep if equipment on a spacecraft, billions of miles from Earth, has a problem. An onboard technician would have to be highly trained on every system on the ship. He wouldn't necessarily have medical training, but would have to have been trained on all the systems on something as important as the Autodoc. It was the only one on board.
31st Jul 2022
The Ropers (1979)
Question: In the pilot episode, Helen says to Stanley that he's now going to have to get a job (assuming to afford living in this pricey townhome), but throughout the entire two-season series, Stanley is shown never getting a job and sits around at home all the time. How did they never run out of money?
Answer: Assuming they made enough income from rentals fees, Helen may have wanted Stanley to find a job solely to get him out of the house and out of her hair. Many women dislike having their husbands home all the time, and, if they're retired, encourage them to find some work or activity outside of the house.
That's possible, though a bit doubtful since they lived in their old apartment building (the Three's Company one) for 14 years. That was 14 years of Stanley being at home without Helen wanting him to get a job "away from home."
She also isn't shown telling him to get a job for any reason after the pilot episode. Rather than continually nagging him, Helen apparently accepted that he wasn't going to get one. Also, it's a TV show. Writers continually change character dynamics, plot lines, running gags, etc. as the show progresses, which can create either deliberate or unintentional inconsistencies. It was probably something the writers saw no reason to pursue.
Answer: He owned the entire apartment complex in "Three's Company." Even the sales prices back in the 1970's were in the millions.
But if that's the case, why would Helen tell Stanley he'd have to get a job when they first moved to their new place? Even Stanley gave a worried look when he was questioned that. If they had all money, that scene would not have taken place and Helen never would have brought that up.
1st Aug 2022
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Question: Why did Diana destroy the mall's security cameras, and why did she want the little girl to stay quiet?
Answer: At this point in time, her gig as a superhero is not public knowledge, and she wants it to stay that way.
How would that accomplish anything considering there were many people in the mall who saw what happened?
As the other answer indicated, Diana/Wonder Woman wasn't yet known publicly as a super-hero. A video recording is different from eye-witness accounts of what people actually saw or believe they saw. Memories are faulty, they fade, and everyone sees and remembers things differently. Regarding the child, I interpreted it as Diana just motioning in a friendly way for the rather precocious girl to stay put, behave, and quietly wait for her mother.
In my opinion, it wouldn't, and it's just another example of the shoddy writing in this film.
Answer: This was long before the age of superheroes, when everything was normal and meta-humans were just theories in a lab. It was her appearances which stated it all. Remember the tagline, "The Dawn of Justice Begins with Her."
23rd Jun 2022
The Lovely Bones (2009)
Factual error: There is a poster of Shaun Cassidy hanging on Susie's bedroom door - not only was Sean Cassidy only 15 years old at the time, but he hadn't even had a hit single yet.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If you're talking about the poster visible at the 16-minute mark, I'm pretty sure that is Shaun's half-brother David Cassidy who was at the height of his popularity in 1973.
It's definitely David Cassidy.
10th Jul 2022
The Lost Boys (1987)
Question: When Max is having dinner with Lucy and her family, why does his reflection show in the mirror if he's really a vampire?
Answer: Max says later that because he was "invited" to come into Lucy's house, then certain identifying vampire traits are nullified and their enemies are rendered powerless. That was why he had a reflection, could eat garlic, which is supposed to repel vampires, and wasn't "burned" by the holy water being thrown on him.
Ya, but Max wasn't invited by the man of the house. That would be the grandfather. Plot error, then?
When was it established that the "man of the house" had to invite them in?
14th Jul 2022
Cast Away (2000)
Question: Why did Chuck stand up and then spend ages looking at the part of the toilet that had washed up?
Answer: By that time, Chuck had been on the island for four years and was becoming somewhat mentally unstable. When he first sees the toilet wall section washed up against the rocks, he approaches defensively, spear in hand, as if it's something dangerous. He seems to snap back to reality and gradually surmises it is not only benign, but potentially useful. His mind then begins working out he can adapt it as a sail to escape the island.
Answer: He couldn't believe it, of all the things to wash ashore it was a toilet. So far everything else he found could be used in a certain way, but a toilet. I didn't see the movie at the theaters but I bet the audiences were roaring with laughter.
I saw it in the theater and no-one laughed...it wasn't funny. Chuck is seeing the first man-made object he's seen in years, and he's stunned...and maybe he's getting the idea of using it as a sail.
16th Jul 2018
The Lost Boys (1987)
Question: As a vampire, Max wasn't allowed in the house until Michael invited him. How were David and his friends allowed inside since they were never invited? Also, how was Star, even though she was only half-vampire able to get into the house? She asked for permission but Michael said no.
Answer: In the film, being invited in isn't a requirement to enter. It's simply a way for the vampire to render you powerless (i.e. the tests the boys performed on Max).
Answer: As stated Star was half vampire, she has some of their powers not all. Max said, "Once you invite a vampire into your home, it renders you powerless." Which is why the holy water and garlic worked. They were not invited, they crashed in.
Answer: It's not that they can't "get in." Its that once you invite them.it renders you "powerless" (according to Max). Lets not forget that David and his friends were all killed. Max was stronger and probably would have won if Grandpa didn't crash into the house and impale him. Basically they can enter anytime...but being invited in gives them an advantage.
Except they weren't invited in. Only Max was.
Answer: Obviously, they were all invited in, one after another.
Only Max was invited in. Nowhere in the movie does it show David and the others being invited. And again, how did Star get into the house when she wasn't invited either?
Star and the others didn't need an invitation to enter any house, and they do not lose their powers once inside. If someone invites a vampire in, then they give the vampire an additional advantage, i.e. holy water won't burn them, they are unaffected by garlic, a mirror shows their reflection, etc. It is the inviter who loses all power against a vampire.
22nd Jun 2022
Evita (1996)
Question: In her death scene Evita sings a final solo and she cries out one line. What does she say? It sounds like "So soon" but I can't get the line. I've listened to the recording of both the film and the Broadway versions.
Answer: Within the movie version, when she is lying in bed singing her final song (titled "Lament"), I think you're referring to the words "how they shone, but how soon the lights were gone" near the end of this song. Also, the following may be helpful to you. This movie is available to watch free on Tubi. The full lyrics to the movie version of "Lament" are available here. For the "Lament" lyrics from the 1979 Broadway version, see here.
Answer: YouTube captions are often autogenerated and have no relation to what's actually being said.
I realise they are autogenerated, which is why I said that it "may" help to work out what the line was. While imperfect, they certainly are relevant to what is said. I've used it myself to figure out parts of movie dialogue. Also, streaming sites showing this movie might have closed captioned dialogue that is not auto-generated and is more accurate.
10th Jun 2022
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: I know that, after Richard Harris died, Ian McKellen was considered to play Dumbledore, but he refused. Why did he reject this role?
Answer: McKellen said he turned it down for two reasons: first, he had already played a famous wizard (Gandalf) and didn't want to do it again; and second, he didn't want to take over a role from Richard Harris after Harris had called him a "dreadful actor."
To clarify, Harris never said that McKellen was "dreadful." He was quoted in an article as describing McKellen as a, "technically brilliant, but passionless" actor. He was also including Kenneth Branagh and Derek Jacobi in that assessment and referred to them all as "nice actors" who were "careful." It was just his opinion about an acting style different from his own, which was more emotive.
18th Feb 2022
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Question: I have always wondered why the entire senior bridge crew beam down to Khitomer at the end of the movie - (1) this crew is already senior - you would expect some junior crew members to come as support even in the series episodes, they always brought the "red shirts" to do at least some of the dirty work or act as security escorts; and (2) Who's left flying the ship?
Answer: The logical reason is that this is the final movie with the original cast. The plot is written so that they all have a heroic climatic moment, are shown to still share a strong united bond, and are all together before bidding Star Trek fans farewell. It was a fitting and satisfying ending to their long participation in the ST franchise. There would certainly be plenty of crew aboard the Enterprise to fly it.
They've uncovered an assassination conspiracy with one of their own senior officers is involved, and she enlisted the help of two jr. Crewman. The plan would be classified to bridge crew only in case there were more crew involved. As for the ship, if they're in standard orbit, the computers can maintain that with very few crew on the bridge.
Answer: To answer question #2: nobody! When we see the senior officers return to the bridge, it is completely deserted.
That doesn't mean there was no-one on the bridge while the senior crew were on the planet. They may just have exited the bridge prior to Kirk and the others stepping back on. Also, bridge control can be transferred to engineering and the ship flown from there while in orbit. I would emphasize again that the scene was written without other crew being seen solely to focus on the original cast members one final time. It's their moment, so a bit of artistic license was appropriate.
14th Oct 2021
A Quiet Place Part II (2020)
Revealing mistake: The "baby" looked quite "rubbery" at times and its limited movements (even motionless) and lack of sound are indicative of a "fake" baby (doll) most of the time. The baby was mostly kept covered in some kind of box and did not even cry when the mother was running with it (while in her arms or in the box). (00:14:35 - 00:20:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is not really a "revealing mistake." Fake babies are used in movies all the time. Due to the complexities of filmmaking, it is simply impractical and impossible to use real infants for most scenes. Child safety and labor laws strictly limits how long a baby can be on set. A fake baby may or may not look "rubbery" but that is what they had to work with.
Your correction is precisely what makes it a revealing mistake. Explaining why a mistake occurs doesn't invalidate the mistake. You could only argue that it doesn't look fake or a real baby was used, but since that's not the case, the mistake stands.
A "mistake" is an unplanned and/or unwanted circumstance. Obviously using a fake baby was an intentional decision. At best, this should be classified as a "Deliberate Mistake."
This very website defines "revealing" mistakes as: "Anything which gives away filming techniques, such as stunt wires being visible, or glass smashing before anyone goes through it." (And I could be wrong, but I believe the definition used to be even broader.) An obviously fake baby falls under that umbrella, and always has. You simply can't argue that it's not a revealing mistake by the rules of this site just because it was a deliberate choice by the filmmakers. Heck, even under your strict definition of mistake (which is very problematic, because it doesn't really account for plenty of things that 99.9% of people would commonly consider "movie mistakes"), it's still a mistake, since the filmmakers wanted people to think it's real, and we obviously don't - ergo an unplanned circumstance.
It is a revealing mistake. They could have used CGI, shot some baby sequences separately and edited them in, etc. There are many ways they could have done things differently; they would just have been more complicated and cost more. The option they went with wasn't all they had to work with; it's just what they chose to work with.
Answer: The explosion did not happen because, by killing the younger McComb, Max prevented the timeline in which McComb planted the bomb. In the new timeline, Senator McComb mysteriously disappeared 10 years ago and was never heard from again.