Question: Before the Clone Wars, what situations did Jedi handle most of the time? I only ask because at Padme's apartment, Obi-wan says it's not their job to investigate the assassination attempt. Anakin says that local security could guard the apartment; it's not a matter for Jedi. So apparently, Jedi don't watch over people nor investigate crimes. What do they do?
A nameless member
21st Apr 2024
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
21st Jan 2015
The Godfather: Part II (1974)
Factual error: When Michael meets with Hyman Roth at his home in Florida the television is on and you can hear the announcer calling a USC/Notre Dame game. The meeting takes place in the late 1950's, but the announcer is Tom Kelly, a long time USC announcer who didn't start calling their games until the 1960's.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The announcer calls out Don Buford and Luther Hayes. These players were on USC's roster together only in 1958. Therefore, the game must be the 1958 matchup that Notre Dame won 20-13. This is not a factual error.
The announcer has the voice of Tom Kelly, who did not announce USC games until the early '60's.
The point is that given the announcer heard is calling a real game from 1958, it's almost certainly the actual announcer from that game. There'd be no point in hiring Tom Kelly to call a fake game. The announcer must just sound like him, but be someone else. Tom Kelly isn't in the credits, which he would be if he was specifically cast in that role.
28th Jan 2024
Saltburn (2023)
Factual error: This is set in summer 2007 but they watch Superbad (released August 2007) on DVD.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The movie actually takes place in 2006. Superbad coming out in 2007 was correct.
Do a word change if the mistake is valid. Not a correction.
The movie starts in late 2006, then Oliver is invited to spend the summer (2007) with Felix, where the bulk of the movie takes place.
19th Dec 2023
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
Other mistake: In flashbacks, younger Indiana Jones has exactly the same voice as the older one.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Harrison Ford's voice has always sounded the same. Watch any film he's done.
It's a noticeably "older" voice than in previous films when he was about the age his de-aged self is meant to be. I mean he's now in his 80s not 40s, of course his voice is different! An unavoidable mistake but still clearly different.
Harrison Ford's voice has definitely become pretty gravelly.
16th Mar 2016
Dexter (2006)
That Night, A Forest Grew - S2-E7
Continuity mistake: The door on his fridge keep changing. When she says "pardon my tits" it is hinged on the right, other episodes it is hinged on the left.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Hinges on fridge doors can be swapped around for ease of the user.
But virtually nobody casually re-hangs their fridge doors on a whim - they set them up once and leave them. This is clearly done for the sake of visual contrivance.
19th Oct 2023
The Simpsons (1989)
Homer's Triple Bypass - S4-E11
Question: Bart and Lisa say they don't feel highs and lows because their generation watches MTV. Can someone explain more?
Answer: I think Lisa and Bart are actually referring to Generation X and early Millennials. People of these ages are also known as "the MTV Generation." They dealt with the political, social, and economic issues that were happening in the '80s and '90s. Many were also "latchkey kids" who had to be independent from an early age. They are known for being apathetic or even cynical, after growing up the way they did.
Answer: They probably mean that MTV has little to do with real life, and viewers became numbed and emotionally detached from reality by watching the contrived idealized images almost non-stop. It prevents them developing empathetic feelings toward others in their lives.
This episode aired Dec 1992, and given that it took 6-9 months to produce an episode, the writing took place early or mid 1992. MTV's first reality show, "The Real World", didn't air until May 1992. "Road Rules", MTV's 2nd reality TV show didn't air until 1995.
But that's all equally applicable to watching endless music videos, shortening attention spans. The fear is/was that constant "input" like that would slightly numb people to the real world, with exciting music/images being the only thing that generates an emotional response, in comparison to the more "boring" real world.
18th Oct 2023
Under Siege (1992)
Question: What exactly did Ryback mean when he told Private Nash that they "brainwashed him at Boot Camp"? I never understood that line all these years.
Answer: Boot camp teaches you to obey. As long as the person talking to you has a higher rank, you're supposed to say "yes, sir or yes, ma'am." You do what you're told when you're told. You don't question it. That's why he goes along with putting Ryback in the freezer instead of the brig. That's why he believes it when he's told that the gunfire is party poppers. That's why Ryback says he's been brainwashed. Because he can't or won't think for himself.
7th Oct 2023
Die Hard (1988)
Question: Were the terrorists intending to blow up the entire building, as opposed to just the roof, to fake their deaths? If that's the case, then how can they continue with the plan to fake their deaths if McClane already took some of the explosives on the lower floor?
Answer: They were planning to blow up just the roof, with the hostages on it, while they (Hans and crew) were safely below, to make law enforcement, the FBI, etc. think they'd been killed along with everyone else in the roof explosion. The plan was to then escape with the loot in the ambulance that Theo was driving and flee the country before anyone could discover their bodies were not among the scores of others. The former element was foiled by McClane's intervention on the roof, leading Hans to activate the explosives prematurely, while the latter was stopped by Argyle when he t-boned the ambulance and punched Theo unconscious in the parking garage.
But what would cause the authorities to think that the terrorists would be on the roof when it blew up? They could have been on the bottom floor for all they knew. I remember the movie quite well, but may have missed a line that clarifies to the authorities that they were going to be on or close to the roof.
As Hans says: "When they touch down, we’ll blow the roof. They’ll spend a month sifting through rubble, and by the time they figure out what went wrong, we’ll be sitting on a beach, earning twenty percent." I don't think Hans was expecting the authorities to assume they were all dead forever, just cause enough carnage and confusion that they can escape. The FBI might think they were dead, or if nothing else not know where they went. The bodies McClane had left behind might even help muddy the waters. They could then escape to a non-extradition country and live in peace, no matter if anyone figured out they were alive or not.
Shortly after he kills Ellis, Hans radios Deputy Chief of police Dwayne T. Robison. He tells him to get his "comrades" released. He lists off several actual terrorists, then tells Dwayne that after those people are released, the hostages will be taken to the roof and accompany them by helicopter to the airport. Later, Agent Johnson of the FBI tells Hans that his demands have been met and that helicopters are en route as requested. That's why the Feds think the bad guys will be on the roof.
18th Oct 2023
The A-Team (1983)
Question: How could Baracus have been in Vietnam, as flying is the only way to get there and he hates it?
Answer: It was actually hinted early in the show's run that he wasn't afraid to fly until he was in Vietnam. Something that happened there made him afraid of flying. They revisited that again in the 2010 film, where it was Murdoc's insane flying of a helicopter that scared him.
That was my first thought - unless it's explicitly stated he's been afraid of flying all his life, it makes perfect sense that it was a fear triggered by a wartime experience.
Answer: Vietnam is accessible by sea. Also, just because someone hates flying doesn't mean they can't just "suck it up" and do it, if it's important enough. If he was in the military, then he would not have a choice. His fear may have grown over the years. His A-Team members often sedated him and would even knock him out to get him on a plane.
22nd Jul 2023
Oppenheimer (2023)
Factual error: After the successful Trinity test in 1945, people in a crowd are holding small US flags with 50 stars on them (offset rows). At the time there were only 48 states and the flag had 48 stars in even rows. The 50 star flag didn't exist until 1960, after Alaska and Hawaii were made states in 1959.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While this is correct, an argument can be made that since the colour scenes are meant to be subjective and the black and white scenes are meant to be objective, Oppenheimer could have been unintentionally mapping the modern US flag onto this scene.
That's a ridiculous stretch with zero evidence, not least as 48 star flags are seen in colour in other scenes. Sometimes a mistake is simply a mistake.
There is evidence, though. Nolan said so himself. Look it up. As for the mistake itself, I'm merely repeating what I've read on Twitter, and this correction was merely a suggestion. Seeing the 48 star flags in other colour scenes still doesn't disprove this theory. It is just a theory though, so no need to shoot it down so hard.
He's said subjective in terms of the colour scenes being "first person", and maybe not strictly factual in terms of creating moments between characters and conveying emotion, but nowhere does that stretch to "one random scene happens to feature 50 star flags because Oppenheimer is mapping the modern flag onto it, when nothing like that happens anywhere else in the film."
Meh, take it up with Twitter. I just thought it was interesting, so I posted it here for a different point of view/perspective for others to read. It is most likely bull**** though.
The fact that a director realized they had made a mistake and retroactively made up a deus ex machina explanation for it in no way invalidates the mistake. Nice try, Mr. Nolan but this posting is absolutely valid.
While Christopher Nolan's talked about the subjective/objective colour/black and white thing, which is entirely fair and no doubt exactly his intention, I don't think he's actually tried to "excuse" this by using that explanation, that's just other people trying to connect the two things. I'm not sure Nolan has commented on the flag issue in interviews at all.
Precisely, and I was in no way trying to invalidate the original mistake. I just found the whole theory interesting and posted it here. It is rather hilarious that a director with such attention to detail like Nolan would have missed something like this. We shall see if he gets it fixed for the streaming/physical release.
It's not fixed in the home video version. However, the behind-the-scenes materials provide a reason for the mistake, in that putting a crowd in the scene was apparently a spur-of-the-moment decision. It's like that in their haste to bring in the crowd, the set decorators bought some modern miniature flags and put them into the scene without anyone realizing the 48/50 discrepancy.
7th Oct 2002
Hannibal (2001)
Factual error: When Hannibal calls Clarice and gives her 3 seconds to change the battery on the phone, it is possible to change the battery in 3 seconds but you would have to turn the phone back on and let it initialize which would make the whole process take longer than 3 seconds. (01:33:17)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Please provide evidence, including the make, model, and duration of the initialization process of the phone, to substantiate this statement. It's not known from the information available that it isn't possible to hot swap the battery, meaning it's quite possible in 3 seconds.
Tell you what, why don't you give us all the make and model of phone which can be turned off, have its battery replaced, and then boot back up again, in 3 seconds. It's not remotely possible on any phone, old or new. Anyone who was using cellphones in the era this phone was made knows it, or indeed now for that matter.
10th Dec 2015
Home Alone (1990)
Continuity mistake: When Kevin goes outside the first time and sees the cars in the garage, the light isn't on. When it shows the garage again in the next shot, the light is on. (00:20:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The light could be motion activated. Either Kevin's movement or passing vehicles could have turned it on, regardless of the time of day. I have motion detector lights in my carport and they constantly go on and off in the daytime if it's low-light and cars pass by fast enough. People walking their dogs can also activate it if they are close enough. They sometimes stay on until I have to manually turn the power off, then on again.
That would explain it only if the light came on when Kevin "activated" it. It stays off during the first scene, and he doesn't make any motion towards the garage when the camera is on him. Nor do we see any vehicles or people pass behind him.
How likely is it that this movie - taken in 1990 - had access to the developed technology that we have today, to make automatic lights turn on?
Infrared motion sensors were around in the 80s.
26th Sep 2021
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974)
Question: I could swear when I saw it it had a different ending. The one I saw at the end Jeff Bridges dies in the car. And Clint Eastwood pushes him out of the car and leaves him on the side of the road, then drives away. But I can't find anything on that. Has anyone else seen that version?
Answer: You must be thinking of another movie, because as far as I know there is no different ending.
I totally agree with your answer. Sometimes movies do film alternate endings that may be used in different markets (i.e. Europe or Asia). Also, alternate endings are sometimes filmed after a test audience reacts negatively to the original one and they may show up in the DVD or director's cut. I didn't find any indication that another version was ever filmed for this movie.
I concur - I can't find any evidence of this alternate ending existing beyond some people claiming it does. Like other examples (Wizard of Oz ending with a shot of the shoes under Dorothy's bed, etc.) I suspect this is just a false memory, although no doubt some will argue that, trouble is there's no way to prove a negative.
You are absolutely correct. Just watched this film again for the first time since the 70's. Thunderbolt leaves Lightfoot sitting (respectfully) by the roadside before driving off! Hope you come across this comment one day.
Answer: I remember the scene of pushing Jeff Bridges out of the car as well. I recently watched the movie on Cable, and Eastwood just kept on driving with Bridges (dead) slumped in his seat. I could have sworn he pushed him out in some alternate version.
Answer: I saw the film on VHS tape 30 years ago and the ending on the tape had Clint Eastwood throwing Jeff Bridge off the cliff.
Answer: Mandela effect.
Answer: The one thrown out of the car was red pushing his friend out of the trunk of the car after he was shot Clint saw his friend die, and he drove off with him still in the car.
1st Mar 2011
Glory (1989)
Other mistake: In the scene where muskets are issued to the 54th Massachusetts, only Pvt. Jupiter Sharts is revealed to be a marksman worthy of training the other troops by virtue of having previously hunted squirrels. The camera then zooms to a closeup of Pvt. Sharts aiming down the barrel with the wrong eye closed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There are many people who are opposite eye dominant...my one buddy shoots a gun right-handed but is left eye dominant...it's common, and isn't a mistake.
Depends on exactly what the mistake is saying - to me it reads like the eye over the barrel is shut, which would throw his aim off significantly.
12th May 2023
The Brady Bunch (1969)
The Impractical Joker - S2-E13
Corrected entry: Alice calls the exterminator for them to come out to the house but never gives them an address.
Correction: Alice calls the Zap-It Exterminator Co, and says, "This is the Brady residence, you did a termite inspection for us a while back," then Alice ends the call with, "Yes, I'll be waiting." So the Zap-It exterminators already have their address on file from the termite inspection.
Despite Alice telling them 'it's the Brady residence', there could have been a dozen or so residents in the area last named Brady. So there'd be no way of knowing which one was actually calling, as doubtful they had caller ID or call tracer in 1970.
But it's entirely believable that this specific exterminator might only have worked for one Brady household, and therefore knows who's calling.
28th May 2013
The Hangover Part III (2013)
Factual error: Chow is carrying around $21 million in gold bullion. A bar weighs 400 ounces. Gold prices at that time were around $1,200 per ounce, and he's got two bags, therefore he's supposedly carrying 8,750 troy ounces, or about 600lb/270kg, on each arm. (00:46:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Chow was carrying half the gold and bars were easy to carry in bags weighing 250 lbs each bag and had the rest elsewhere.and together he had 5 bags total at end so 1250 lbs x 16 oz is 20,000.oz so 1250 bucks per oz. X 20,000 equals 25 million and chow had more strength due to all drugs in his system made him stronger and pain free.
Even if he only had 2/5 bags and the 5 bags total weighed 600lb / 270kg, that still means one bag would weigh about 108kg / 240lb, which is too much for an average person to carry one handed, drugged-up or not.
15th Oct 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Question: How are Captain America, Black Widow, and Black Panther talking to Proxima Midnight through the Wakandan cloaked shield? What's she looking at? Trees?
Answer: It's not a cloaking shield. It's a defensive barrier. There would be no need to have a cloaking shield within the city because anybody that's inside the city would seemingly already know that Wakanda is hidden.
The cloak is to hide the city. If Cap flew in and only saw trees...what is the Black Order looking at and talking to?
The cloaking shield is what hides the city from overhead view, so aircraft that fly over can't see that there's an advanced city hiding within what is believed to be a third-world country. The barrier around the palace is to prevent enemies from attacking. That's why the "space dogs" are being torn apart when they try to go through the shield. When it becomes apparent that they can get through the shield when they attempt to do so in large numbers, Black Panther orders a section of the shield to be opened in order to bottleneck the forces in so that they can't surround the palace and penetrate the shield from a side that's not as well guarded.
This wasn't an overhead view. They were flying low and in a straight line into trees that on the other side hid buildings that were the same height. They weren't looking down.
Irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is the Wakandans build that shield, and they can do anything they want with it. Perhaps the cloaking part is discarded to boost the shield's defensive capabilities.
That's an illogical answer: they can do what they want. Perhaps? Where is that in the movie? These are guesses not answers.
Are you saying they don't have full control over their own shield that they designed and can manipulate very specifically, as seen in the movie?
"Perhaps the cloaking part is discarded to boost the shield's defensive capabilities." - where is that in the movie? This website would not exist if every response was "they can do whatever they want".
It is when we are talking about future technology in advanced civilizations. This entry is also a question, not a mistake. There is a simple explanation for it, so that is the answer.
This is a theory not an explanation. An explanation would be backed up by facts from the movie.
There isn't an in-film "explanation", but that's a distinction without a difference. If in a movie we see someone in one place and then several scenes later we're shown them somewhere else, there isn't an "explanation" for how they've got there, but there might be plenty of perfectly reasonable theories about how - drove themselves, got a ride, took the bus, etc. This is a wholly fictional technology and the "facts from the movie" are that people can talk through it, just like they can choose to open specific narrow sections. So we take at face value that it's possible, because there's no in-film reason to assume it isn't possible.
7th Jan 2023
General questions
I watch a lot of 80s and 90s shows. I've noticed that when two characters sit on a couch, they often sit close beside each other, in the couch's center. It's not so unrealistic for a dating/married couple, a parent and young child, or times when a character needs to hug and comfort another. But in real life, if there is plenty of room on a couch, many teens and adults don't choose to sit so close together. Is this done for a filming reason? Or is my real-life experience odd?
Answer: It's usually done that way for framing/composition reasons, since it looks more aesthetically pleasing to the eye to see two people beside each other than on opposite ends of a couch. Things that may seem more natural, like sitting on opposite ends of a couch, just don't often look good on camera. Plus, it subtly indicates that they are close in some way, making it a good storytelling shorthand. (It's kinda similar to how in TV shows, if a scene is set during the morning, there's usually a giant, ornate breakfast out on the table that nobody actually touches, save for maybe grabbing something before they run out the door. Totally unrealistic, but it looks good on camera and is a visual shorthand to indicate it's the morning).
I'd imagine with older 4:3 ratio TV screens if people were at opposite ends of a couch the camera would have to be quite far back to see them both (easier on 16:9 widescreens), so it's easier to have them in the middle with a bit of space either side to make it symmetrical.
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?
28th Dec 2022
Ghosts (US) (2021)
Revealing mistake: Hetty's reflection is in the octagonal mirror, Issac's reflection is caught in the window he is standing next to and Thorfinn's reflection is in the dressing mirror he passes.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Where was it established that the ghosts' reflections aren't visible?
It doesn't make sense that the ghosts would have reflections or even cast shadows for that matter, it indicates they have a physical body to block or reflect light which we know isn't the case.
I'd argue if we the audience can see the ghosts, there's no reason why we can't also see their reflections. Other people can't see the ghosts or the reflections. It's suspension of disbelief or a visual narrative tool of sorts. It's different from vampires, say, which generally aren't meant to have reflections at all.
That makes a valid point but based on the "mistake" that started this, I can see why that person thinks reflections are out of context with every other ghost movie out there, like in Beetlejuice where Gena Davis moves the horse in the mirror and she isn't visible. It wouldn't be as good a scene if she was reflected in the mirror too.
Light reflecting off objects is exactly why things are visible. So how can Sam can see them if they're not reflecting light off their bodies? They also can't interact with their environment, so it doesn't make sense that only Sam can hear them because that means they're vibrating the physical air around them. It doesn't make sense that they can walk through walls but sit in chairs.
The whole plot of the show is that only Sam can see/hear them because she had the near death experience. From what you are saying about air vibrations, Jay should be able to at least hear the ghosts but since he can't, its implied they are invisible to, and unheard by, living people. They are manifestations of energy, hence why some can pass their powers onto living people or turn on/off lights, and energy is invisible to the naked eye.
I understand the plot. My point was nothing makes sense if you use physics as we know it, so the mistake isn't valid. Because being "manifestations of energy" doesn't explain how Sam can see and hear them (not the why) or most anything else they do. But since it's a fantasy with its own made up rules, there's nothing to prevent the ghosts from having reflections, no matter what you want to assume they are.
I don't know how many people are in on this, but I'm loving this debate! I do agree though that the ghosts should not have reflections, they're supposed to be invisible unless you have the gift like the lady does.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: Their job is to protect the integrity of the republic with diplomacy and advice to politicians. They do not enforce laws or rules. They can also be security for senators or be taken to places in crisis to help resolve difficult matters (like the blockade of Naboo). They protect and secure. That was their job during the time of the 'old' republic.
lionhead
So, in a way, are the Jedi similar to involving the FBI in a situation, instead of contacting your town/city/county police?
Maybe more like UN Peacekeepers.