Phaneron

23rd Feb 2016

The Simpsons (1989)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Maybe he was allowed to participate due to good behavior. That's a possibility.

Rubbish. He is denied parole numerous times and shown to be a high risk prisoner.

Ssiscool

Good behavior or not, a prison wouldn't furlough an inmate just so they could participate in a snow day.

Phaneron

30th Sep 2010

Boy Meets World (1993)

Father Knows Less - S1-E3

Corrected entry: When Cory's ball bounces into Feeny's yard, he climbs over it and is surprised to see Feeny when he flashes a light on him. Cory would literally have to be blind to not notice Mr. Feeny in his lawn chair.

Knever

Correction: Things like that happen in real life all the time. Especially in the dark. It's not at all unrealistic for Cory to have missed Mr. Feeny due to the fact that he wasn't looking for him. I recently walked right past a friend I was on my way to visit, purely because she wasn't where I was expecting her to be.

Feeny was sitting less than 5 feet away from where the ball landed and also would have been in Cory's field of view based on where the ball ended up and Feeny's position relative to it. The mistake is valid.

Phaneron

As the previous user mentioned above; ridiculous as it may appear to an audience watching, this happens a lot in real life. I myself missed my cousin who walked right past me only a foot in front of me and that was in broad daylight when I was actively looking for her. If this kind of thing happens in real life, it can easily happen with the character. Especially since it was night-time and Cory was not expecting Feeny to be there.

Show generally

Question: Hank bears no resemblance to his father, but strongly resembles his mother. Bobby bears no resemblance to Hank (or seemingly Peggy), but bears a strong resemblance to Hank's father. Is it actually possible for a person to bear such a strong resemblance to one of their Grandparents if they are only getting half their genes from that Grandparent's child and that child bears no resemblance to that particular parent?

Phaneron

Answer: It's also said genetics plays a part here. You can look like an ancestor more than a parent. I myself look nothing like either of mine nor do any of my 3 siblings: older brother, older sister, younger sister.

Rob245

Chosen answer: The short answer is "yes", it is possible to resemble your Grandparent even if your parent doesn't resemble your Grandparent. The old adage is "it's not like mixing paint", meaning combining genes doesn't always get the same result. It's why full siblings don't always look exactly alike even though they have the same genetic makeup. I look next to nothing like my paternal grandmother but I have a child that greatly resembles her.

BaconIsMyBFF

Is it a mistake then that Hank's Japanese half-brother strongly resembles him, and by extension Hank's mother, or is that still a small possibility?

Phaneron

Sort of. These are animated characters, and the style of animation isn't particularly detailed. The resemblance between the two is played up for laughs. But there are plenty of real life examples of people that aren't related at all but greatly resemble one another. Famous examples are Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Javier Bardem, or Will Ferrell and Chad Smith.

BaconIsMyBFF

25th Feb 2020

Seinfeld (1990)

The Baby Shower - S2-E10

Corrected entry: It's just a parody/absurd sequence, but it's odd that with over two dozen bullets shot from barely a dozen feet of distance, just a couple entry wounds appear on the body of the runaway Seinfeld. Of course no blood either, but that's a necessity given the type of show. (00:08:55)

Sammo

Correction: It's a dream sequence. It doesn't have to follow the rules of reality. I frequently have dreams that logically make no sense.

Phaneron

I know, I know, but never been a big fan of giving a free pass to dream sequences for things like continuity, poor stunts etc. If anything, it'd get a pass because it's a comedy and violence and realism are toned down by default.

Sammo

The very nature of dreams give them a free pass for just about anything. I will have dreams where I'm talking to a certain person or holding a certain object, and in the next moment the person will be someone else or the object will be something else. I have dreams where I am back in high school and the layout of the building will frequently change, or the class I go into will change subjects. If you put that to film, it would be a change in continuity.

Phaneron

What you say is true for dream sequences played specifically with the purpose to give the viewer a sense of disorientation, experience something obviously 'off', a deliberately disjointed and creative scenario that breaks reality. As I said, I am not a fan of being unable to nitpick scenes or even movies who happen all in someone's head for trivial mistakes that are not something as amazingly obvious as the ones you explained. Your examples are something the viewer would notice and would register as deliberate choice and part of the plot, but Seinfeld wearing earbuds or 2 gunshot wounds instead of a dozen are not really something I can put in the same category. If the dream scene is played 'straight', as that one has been, I don't believe we have to just assume that any take can be edited together since continuity is not an issue, props and tricks can be visible or act weird because who knows what can happen in a dream, etc.

Sammo

You make a fair point (which is also why I didn't submit a correction for your separate entry of Jerry wearing ear protection). However, the basis of this submission is that Jerry only has a couple entry wounds and no bleeding after being shot numerous times. That can just be chalked up to how his mind dreamed the scenario. I don't think a sense of disorientation or something being off needs to be established (especially when the sequence is played for laughs) for viewers to accept details like that can suddenly change within a dream since we all dream and understand that those things happen.

Phaneron

Not necessarily "established" but "with purpose", which can be seen in hindsight. Anything can happen in a dream, but if he imagined to be shot in such a dramatic fashion so many times and die, the fact that he dies with a cheap effect is hardly serving any narrative purpose. Again, I could see why ultimately the mistake could be seen as stating the obvious since "the scene is played for laughs", which was my first caveat posting the scene, the last being the lack of blood for censorship purposes. They didn't thoroughly cover Jerry Seinfeld with squibs and things like that just for a gag - explanation of the 'mistake' rather than justification, but fair. But as far as the dream goes, the point of that dream scene is to do something more 'violent' and unexpected than you'd see in the 'real life' scenes, not tone it down through a marginal detail that has a clear explanation.

Sammo

Chosen answer: In the alternate ending of Final Destination 3, a newspaper blows by, revealing Kimberly and Burke ran into each other at a hardware store and a Camaro (belonging to Evan) ran through the store, knocking them into a nearby woodchipper. Kimberly's coat was tangled and was snatched into the machine. Burke attempted to save her, and both were dismembered.

lartaker1975

How come Thomas didn't die first in the sequence of death? He was the first to be killed in the car wreck?

Death was working in reverse order. The last person to die in the premonition was the first person to die in the real world.

Phaneron

Answer: No, Thomas wouldn't have died first because it was explained that Death was going backwards since everyone that died in the first movie made some people miss their death date, so he had to tie up the loose ends.

8th Jan 2020

Common mistakes

Correction: Blood relatives do not always resemble each other.

BaconIsMyBFF

No, but they frequently do, and movies rarely reflect that.

Phaneron

That's not really a "common mistake", though since it's never a mistake to have blood relatives that do not resemble each other.

BaconIsMyBFF

Yes, you are right about that.

Phaneron

I mostly agree. Family members often look too different to be biologically related. Even if an effort is made, for example, to have a son look like his father, some things don't sync - like a different face shape/bone structure or skin tone (not due to tanning). One example of father/son dissimilarities are in The War of the Worlds - the boy playing Tom Cruise's son has a completely different facial shape/structure. Regarding skin tone, in Boyhood the sister of Mason has a different skin tone than the rest of the family - and it stands out.

KeyZOid

I'm probably a bit sensitive to this since my family members don't all have a strong resemblance to each other, but it's absolutely possible, especially if your family tree is diverse in genetics/ appearance. It happens more often than not in movies, but it's not a mistake. (And who's to say that in many of these cases people weren't adopted?).

TonyPH

27th Jan 2020

General questions

When I was a little kid I checked out a Batman graphic novel from the library. It had a lot of his rogues gallery in it, most if not all of whom were killed in it. I specifically remember Catwoman being shot and her dying words were along the lines of "Batman, I'm so cold." Batman then kissed her before she died. Does anyone know what the name of this graphic novel/storyline is?

Phaneron

Answer: All Stars #17?

Based on my Google search results, "All-Star Batman" is a more recent publication. The year I read the book in question was probably 1993, so it was probably published in the late 80s or early 90s.

Phaneron

I believe the answer should have been DC Super-Stars #17. That issue features the death of the Earth Two Selina Kyle as part of the origin story of her daughter, Helena Kyle (The Huntress).

BaconIsMyBFF

Someone on Reddit guessed it was Batman Annual 15 (Armageddon 2001), and based on the panels that are pictured on the website of the link they provided, it appears to be that one.

Phaneron

That's not it either, unfortunately. I specifically remember Killer Croc being in this, because it was the first time I ever heard of him, and he didn't debut until 1983, six years after DC Superstars #17. I think Batman killed Joker at the end out of revenge for Catwoman. With so many other characters being killed in it, I'm pretty certain it was an Elseworld story and not connected to whatever the main DC universe is or was at the time.

Phaneron

8th Oct 2018

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Answer: Sandman is a fugitive who is on the run. It is more than likely that his name has appeared in the news at some point. His daughter and her illness would likely have also been mentioned as well. Seeing as how Eddie worked at the Daily Bugle, it shouldn't have took long for him to put two and two together.

Casual Person

The symbiote (which turned Eddie into Venom) usually has its previous owner's memories. So Eddie might have known about Sandman's daughter through Peter's memories.

But Peter doesn't seem to know he had a daughter and shows surprise when he's told of her at the end.

Rob245

Supposedly there is a deleted scene where Venom finds out about Sandman's daughter but it was cut for time, so it ends up creating a little bit of a plot hole in the final film.

Phaneron

25th Jan 2020

Star Wars (1977)

Question: Are lightsabers capable of cutting through any substance, or are there objects in the franchise (even if the examples are no longer canon) that have been specifically mentioned as being resistant?

Phaneron

Answer: There are several substances in canon and non-canon that are resistant to lightsabers. Beskar, also known as Mandalorian iron or Mandalorian steel was used to make armor and weapons by the Mandalorian people. Cortosis was an ore that, when heavily refined, stopped lightsaber blades and blaster bolts. Phrik was another metal, used in Darth Sidious' lightsabers and the electrostaffs used by Grievous' robot guards. Neuranium was a very, very dense and heavy metal that was partially resistant to lightsabers, but was more often used to shield from scanners. The species orbalisk and vonduun crab had carapaces that could withstand the blow of a lightsaber.

LorgSkyegon

Answer: The Force Awakens features stormtroopers using the "Z6 riot control baton", which they use to block the lightsaber when Finn uses it.

Jon Sandys

Is it the baton itself that is resistant, or the energy surge around it? Because I know Snoke's guards were able to block lightsabers with energized weapons as well.

Phaneron

Yes you see them in Episode III as well when fighting on the bridge of the chancellor's ship. My guess is the energy blocks the lightsaber. It's logical they would come up with some sort of technology to block lightsabers if materials that can block them are that rare.

lionhead

Answer: There are a handful of items, but I don't believe any have been mentioned or shown in the film series (other than another lightsaber itself). Mandalorian Iron (also known as Beskar) and Phrix are resistant to lightsaber attacks and have been mentioned in the TV show "Star Wars: The Clone Wars", but I don't recall if their resistance is specifically mentioned in the show.

Bishop73

Question: Ben surrenders the Declaration of Independence, and the treasure's location, in exchange for not going prison. In real life, would surrendering the Declaration and the treasure's location be enough to convince the FBI to let him off the hook, or would he still go to prison?

Answer: It's doubtful anyone would be completely "off the hook" for stealing the Declaration of Independence and also receive a percentage of the treasure's worth, even if they revealed the location.

raywest

What do you mean by completely off the hook for stealing the declaration?

It means Ben would face no punishment for his crime.

Phaneron

11th Sep 2017

It (2017)

Factual error: Nivea Soft Cream is on the shelves at the chemist - this did not exist in 1989, when the film is set.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: I think the date is subject to debate. The only thing we really have to go on is it's 2019 in chapter 2, and It comes back every 27 years which would be 1992.

The date is not subject to debate. The marquee on the movie theater is advertising both "Batman" and "Lethal Weapon 2," placing the movie in the summer of 1989.

Phaneron

There is no debate about the date. After the title card it says "June 1989." The opening scene took place "October 1988."

Bishop73

Corrected entry: Batman couldn't possibly have his own credit card. Obtaining a credit card requires proof of identification and a billing address, neither of which Batman would submit for obvious reasons. Nor would it be a credit card that he issued himself through Wayne Enterprises because the credit card company would see that a Wayne Enterprises Corporate credit card was used at a charity event that was attended by Batman and would subsequently reveal his secret identity (not to mention that Batman intends on using the card for a $7 million purchase, which is not a price anyone is going to turn a blind eye to), which is not something Batman would risk. And although the Bat-credit card may be a jokey reference to the 60s TV series, Batman still demonstrates his intent on using the card to secure his bid for a date with Poison Ivy, which means that in the context of the film, the credit card is functional.

Phaneron

Correction: In a world where Batman would actually carry his own Bat-Card it must then be that Bruce Wayne started his own bank with the sole purpose of providing credit to Batman. It being his bank, he can decide whom to lend to, with or without the standard identifying information.

Phixius

Correction: Granted that the movie takes place in the real-time calendar year 1997; keep in mind that major federal banking laws were not enforced too seriously at the time, plus this was the time way before the USA Patriot Act was created and strictly enforced after the September 11 terrorist attacks. I can understand that even if Bruce Wayne did manage to have his own bank and provided a line of credit to Batman still like everyone else he had to submit to US federal banking laws (FCRA, ECOA and the like.) Let alone the general public will find it too suspicious why a private citizen would give a line of credit to a superhero in the first place. Either way, it's all within the DC World fantasy.

joshtrivia

I would be too young to remember, but prior to online shopping, weren't people usually required to present their ID when making a credit card purchase? When I had my first job, if someone was making a purchase with the credit card, our boss required us to check their ID. I mean, if I was holding a fundraiser and someone pledged $1 million, I would want them to provide valid ID in case they decided to welch on the payment.

Phaneron

Ironically Batman doesn't have to show ID.

lionhead

7th Jan 2013

Lockout (2012)

Plot hole: Hock sneaks a gun into the prisoner interrogation area because he is told that guns are not allowed there. If the prison was so strict about keeping guns out of that area then they would surely have metal detectors to prevent such a thing from happening. (00:15:25)

Phaneron

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Not a plot hole at all. Most of the people who are allowed in those areas will be government employees, who will be deemed trusted enough to follow the rules.

If they won't even allow a member of the Secret Service - the President's own security team - to have a gun in that area, they wouldn't simply trust them to just follow the rules.

Phaneron

13th Jan 2020

Dark Phoenix (2019)

Answer: Your guess is correct. Lawrence stated she was done with the franchise after "X-Men: Apocalypse." She jokingly told Simon Kinberg she would return for this film if he directed it, and to her surprise, he was serious about it and held her to it. Fans weren't very keen on her appearances either, because she was definitely phoning it in for the third film, so that may have factored into killing her off early as well.

Phaneron

More than one actress had played Mystique. Just because Jennifer Lawrence did not want to continue playing that role is not a reason the character would be killed off. They could easily recast another notable actress in the part. I would not be surprised if Mystique is miraculously "resurrected" in a future X-Men film with a new actress.

raywest

Aside from Deadpool, any new X-Men film would be a complete overhaul of the franchise since the characters will be part of the MCU now. You're not wrong about an actor wanting out to not really be a reason to kill off a character, but it doesn't preclude them from doing so either. They might have decided it wouldn't be worth the hassle of recasting the role with all the negative baggage that would come with it.

Phaneron

Here are some candidates I think could do it: Amanda Seyfried, Shailene Woodley, Chloe Grace Moretz. Heck maybe even Milla Jovovich-Anderson should be given an audition, what say you guys?

Rob245

8th Jan 2020

Star Wars (1977)

Question: Why is Han so skeptical of the Force? I get that he himself has never witnessed anyone use it, but he would have been alive during the Jedi purge, and surely he knows that Chewbacca fought alongside the Jedi on Kashyyyk. Additionally, is there any reason Obi-Wan wouldn't have demonstrated Force powers to Han on the way to Alderaan other than he didn't feel the need to prove it?

Phaneron

Answer: Han describes force powers as "simple tricks and nonsense." He has never seen any Jedi doing anything particularly super-powered. Even if Chewy did and told Han it is still reasonable for him to be skeptical and to think his friend is exaggerating. Han simply thinks the stories about Jedi are overblown. A good way to think about it would be to examine how ninja are presented in popular culture versus how they were in reality. The stories surrounding ninja are greatly exaggerated to the point of absurdity, applying immense fighting ability and oftentimes magical powers to normal men. The difference is jedi actually had magical abilities while ninja did not.

BaconIsMyBFF

Answer: To answer the second part of your question, Obi-Wan has Luke demonstrate the Force in front of Han by putting a blinder on and fighting the remote. Believing he has made his point, Obi-Wan comments "You see!", to which Han replies that Luke's success was against a remote, and that fighting a living person was completely different. So even after being shown something that is completely impossible without the use of the force, Han still chooses not to believe.

BaconIsMyBFF

Well Han also dismissed Luke's success with the remote as luck. If Obi-Wan used the Force to steal Han's blaster right from its holster, would Han just dismiss it as magic? Is there such thing as magical powers in the Star Wars universe independent from the Force?

Phaneron

Oh, I absolutely agree with your point. But I always took this scene to mean that Obi-Wan isn't trying to win an argument with Han or prove anything to him. He's trying to teach Luke about the force. He doesn't really care what Han believes and is dismissive of his comments. Luke believes he felt the force using the remote and that's what is important.

BaconIsMyBFF

Jedi are implied to be humble. It would be out of character for a Jedi such as Obi-Wan to attempt convincing Han in such a drastic way.

Rassdyt

There actually is, or so I believe. The nightsisters, also called the witches of Dathomir, that appear in The Clone Wars-series. They used dark magic.

Rassdyt

Answer: As the guardian of the Soul Stone, the Red Skull presumably just showed Steve the spot where he needed to return it. As for how Steve got to Vormir in the first place, he could have either borrowed a spaceship from Asgard or had Heimdall teleport him there via the Bifrost after returning the Reality Stone.

Phaneron

Asgard doesn't exist at the time Steve would return the stone.

It did when they took it so its still there when he brings it back. It's shortly before the dark elves attack.

lionhead

Yes it does. Clint, Natasha, Rhodey and Nebula all traveled to Morag in 2014 when Quill took the Power Stone, at which point Clint and Natasha took the Guardians' ship and traveled to Vormir to retrieve the Soul Stone. Steve can travel to Asgard in 2014 and ask Heimdall to teleport him to both of those planets. Asgard wasn't destroyed until just before the events of Infinity War.

Phaneron

Corrected entry: During the scene with the SR-71 Blackbird, while Erik is on the wheel assembly, Professor X yells 'Hank take my hand' several times. Hank is flying the plane. Erik is the one he is trying to save from falling.

Good Job!

Correction: He says Erik. Xavier's accent and the noise surrounding the scene just make it sound like he is saying Hank.

Phaneron

Phaneron is correct. Xavier does say "Erik." You can hear the difference, especially in the end sound where you can hear the "ik" sound instead of "ŋk" sound he makes when saying Hank's name (like he did a few minutes earlier in the scene).

Bishop73

He definitely says Hank. It's not even close to Erik, he's been saying Erik the whole movie and it has never sounded different due to his accent.

I just watched this scene on YouTube and he unequivocally says "Erik." You can even see his mouth move when he says the second syllable, whereas "Hank" is a one-syllable word and would not require moving the mouth mid-word.

Phaneron

It also becomes more obvious that he is saying "Erik" when the YouTube clip is played at slower speeds.

Phaneron

19th Jul 2019

Spaceballs (1987)

Corrected entry: When President Scroob is beamed to the next room, his head is on backwards. When he pulls away the back of his coat and says, "Why didn't somebody tell me my ass was so big?", his hands are angled like they are backwards as well. His palms are pointing towards his back. They should be facing the other way, as well as his thumbs being reversed.

Correction: The crew remarks that his head is on backwards. It doesn't mean his entire torso can't also be backwards.

Phaneron

To be fair, they even admit this was a mistake on the Blu-Ray edition of the film. (There's a special feature that points out various flubs.) It was really only meant to only be his head that was reversed.

TedStixon

Well, I think you could argue that it may have been a mistake as far as the filmmakers' intent was concerned, but it doesn't necessarily translate to mistake with respect to the scene itself. Technically, Skroob's head was on backwards. Nothing any of the characters said contradicted that.

Phaneron

18th Dec 2019

Common mistakes

Corrected entry: A more recent goof in the action and spy thriller genres, a group of henchmen setting out on a mission in black SUVs will be tailgating each other. If any car other than the one in the rear were to slam on their brakes, it could potentially cause a pileup.

Phaneron

Correction: Some police and military teams practise driving fast and close to prevent other vehicles coming between the ones in the convoy. Since the bad guys in current movies are often shown to be ex-military, this may be the reason they drive like that. That's speculation but it is no more or less credible than them being licensed to carry automatic weapons or explosives. Depends on the quality of the movie and the willing suspension of disbelief of the audience.

The difference being that police and military teams will be sanctioned to drive like that. In addition to being a dangerous driving habit, tailgating is also illegal. So henchmen and mercenaries driving like that in civilian vehicles could also draw the attention of law enforcement who could pull them over and put a monkey wrench in their mission plans, especially if they discover illegal weapons.

Phaneron

11th Dec 2019

Star Wars (1977)

Question: Out of the numerous (and mostly unnecessary) changes George Lucas has made to this film over the years, has he ever given any reason as to why he has never fixed the appearance of the lightsabers in the film, or updated the awful CGI Jabba the Hutt? Those have always stood out to me as the two most glaring weaknesses in the visual department.

Phaneron

Answer: The CGI Jabba was updated for the 2004 DVD release from the version first added in the 1997 Special Edition.

Sierra1

Answer: He has not. He has only ever generally commented on the updates to the 90's Special Edition re-releases having scenes updated to fit what he always envisioned but was limited by budget and technology. The additional changes that have been made since the films were released on Blu-Ray and now Disney Plus have gone without comment. To your point about the lightsabers, they have been improved on the Disney Plus version of the film. The colors are more vibrant, and they now have a more noticeable sparking effect with clashes in the Obi-Wan/Vader duel.

BaconIsMyBFF

I plan on watching this film on Disney+ within the next few days, so I look forward to seeing what they did with the lightsabers.

Phaneron

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.