Question: Why would the terminator carry his weapon unloaded? It's shown loading the pistol prior to firing. A machine without care for injury would be loaded at all times.
A nameless member
19th Jul 2021
The Terminator (1984)
Answer: It does carry its pistol loaded: it merely pulls back the slide in the nightclub scene, priming the weapon. As an infiltration unit, the Terminator would try to prevent an accidental discharge, and thus avoid drawing attention to itself until it's reached its intended target.
Although I'd argue a perfect killing machine would never discharge its weapon accidentally, how could it?
The Terminators are shown time and again throughout the series NOT to be "perfect"; they make mistakes that are unaccounted for in their manufacture/programming. They are continually improved upon from film to film, indicating that they are BEING perfected, but not perfect. There is a world of difference, perhaps an insurmountable one, between the idea of a perfect anything, and the actual execution of that perfect thing.
12th Dec 2003
The Green Mile (1999)
Character mistake: You'd think prison guards on Death Row would have known a little more about safe restraints, the way they bind and gag Percy could eventually kill him. They stuff a handkerchief all the way into his mouth, then tape his mouth closed. The gag reflex could suck the handkerchief into his windpipe and suffocate him in about three or four minutes. Even if he might be able to find away around the danger of suffocation the fact remains that no trained, experienced prison guard is ever going to restrain someone in that way.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not everyone even has a gag reflex, and it is easy, though not comfortable to push the handkerchief forward into the mouth with the tongue. You can see Percy breathing through his nose, so he's not running out of air. The other guards had no intention of leaving him in the cell for a long time, only long enough to teach him a lesson.
It doesn't matter what he "might" be able to do, or even if he could push the handkerchief forward. That's not the mistake. A trained, experienced prison guard would not restrain someone like that. Never.
Again, what might or might not have happened is irrelevant. No skilled, trained, experienced prison guard would apply a gag in this way.
3rd Apr 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Question: So when we see Cheetah again she's sitting there seemingly human once more. Does she still have her other powers?
Answer: She feels sad for letting her personal fears and greed for power consume her. As for getting home, like Robert Shaw said at the end of Force Ten from Navarone, "We have a very long walk back home."
Answer: The way I interpreted the ending (which is up for debate obviously in a different forum) was it was the act of Max Lord renouncing his wish which caused Barbara to lose her cheetah powers. It also caused every other unrenounced wish to be lost. Barbara wouldn't have been able to hear the broadcast or Wonder Woman telling the world to renounce their wish (it would also explains how all the wishes were rescinded without everyone having to be listening to Max). It's unclear if she lost her initial wish though (to be more like Diana). It's possible we'll find out what happened to her in a follow up Wonder Woman/Justice League film, but I highly doubt it.
Answer: No. When everyone in the world all renounced their wish, Barbara renouncing her wish would have resulted in her losing both her Cheetah powers and the ability to be more like Diana.
Well then why does she look sad for having done the right thing and how's she going to get home?
Sad because she's lost her powers, her getting home is her problem and not plot-relevant.
24th Mar 2021
Superman (1978)
Question: This question is about all four Superman films and Supergirl. When Clark and Linda become Superman and Supergirl, their civilian clothes immediately disappear. Has anybody who worked on the movies ever given any insight to what happens to the clothes they wear before they switch to their suits?
Answer: I'm saying what happens to their clothes in the comics, is what happens to it in the movies. Special Effects were not as sophisticated as today's, so you never saw where the clothes went.
Answer: In the original comics, they folded their clothes into small pieces and put them in pouches concealed in their capes. There was no CGI back then.
This question is about what happens to their clothes in the movies, not the comics. Their clothes just vanish.
The point is that given that's what happens in the comics, that may well be what happens in the films too, just either not shown or else they do it at super-speed so we can't see it happen.
24th Mar 2021
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Factual error: In Part Two, as Diana explains to Bruce Wayne the history of the Mother Boxes on Earth, we see an extended flashback of Earthly gods and warriors in an epic battle against Darkseid. When Diana says, "A golden age of heroes fighting together," we see a close-up of an Amazon archer drawing back an arrow right-handed, leaning right, and releasing it. However, the arrow is unsupported on the bow, so she couldn't possibly aim or control the arrow. (01:03:59)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's not even a matter of how good you are. Placing the arrow on the opposite side of your dominant hand is very much a Western style draw, popularized often times in Hollywood movies. Ancient and Eastern methods used a same side draw. It's mostly determined by the grip used and type of archery you're performing.
Nonsense. The physics of the draw demand that the arrow is supported on the riser. Even ancient Roman archers and American Indians supported their arrows on the bow. Again, go try it yourself. You can't hit diddly releasing an unsupported arrow on the wrong side of the bow.
Not that this is the forum for it, but here's just 1 example. Https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9cGSpYLdH8s.
Yes, it's possible to shoot same-side, as long as you're supporting the arrow with the bow. However, in the Justice League shot that I cited, the Amazon archer is holding the bow right-handed hunter style, with the bow tilted to the right, which means the arrow is totally unsupported and uncontrollable. There's this inconvenient force known as GRAVITY that pulls the arrow away from your intended trajectory when the arrow is unsupported.
Suggested correction: Incorrect. You can place the arrow either side of the bow. It depends on how good of an archer you are.
I've been an archer for over 40 years, and you don't load your arrow on the outside of your bow. I don't care "how good an archer" you THINK you are, you can't aim or control an unsupported arrow on the wrong side of the bow. Try it. Make a video of it. You'll be embarrassed to find you can't hit the broad side of a barn with the arrow on the wrong side of the bow.
Firstly, it's clearly possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5M2KHVyWI. Secondly, given the multiple "impossible" feats achieved by the Amazons given their super-physiology, "being able to accurately fire an arrow on the 'wrong' side of a bow" obviously falls under suspension of disbelief, and doesn't warrant either a mistake or the level of anger you're showing to people here.
Both videos state explicitly (especially Lars Andersen's) that yes, you CAN shoot from 'the wrong side', IF and only IF you use a particular, Eastern based grip, the thumb one. Watch the movie. She uses (which makes sense, for someone from the Greek mythology, I guess!) the 'Western style' so, left side as stated. I personally love over-analyzing this sort of things that give you so much insight and fun tidbits, rather than "Ah it's magic, who cares."
6th Feb 2009
The Brady Bunch (1969)
Other mistake: When the boys are playing football in the backyard, watch Greg's right foot - at one point he slips on the Astroturf lawn, causing it to wrinkle and exposing a seam on the "grass" lawn. (00:03:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: At no time in the show did they affirm the grass in the backyard is real. Many houses, particularly out west where the show takes place, have artificial grass as it's often easier than caring for real grass which tends to dry up easily out west or not grow at all in some areas. Even in A Very Brady Renovation they made sure to use artificial grass for the backyard.
The grass is supposed to be real. There are several episodes where they are mowing the lawn.
But the renovation show was in 2019. In the early 70s artificial grass was only starting to be adopted in sports stadiums. Not used in homes until many years later.
4th Mar 2018
Flight of the Phoenix (2004)
Corrected entry: You don't use a circular saw to cut the metal on a plane's wing. You use a torch. Metal on the wing of a plane is strong enough to damage a circular saw.
Correction: That must have come as a surprise to the crew who dismantled a Victor bomber - a military aircraft which would be much sturdier than the C119 Flying Boxcar in this film - using a circular saw. See https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/victor-bomber-scrapped-at-raf-marham-7326968?fbclid=IwAR1nwmkJZMNGQyTnOWw-Uc87_jU3292xJ48wJke8f5ilvVPG1GxAc8w3k-I.
And your point is?
I'm not the commenter above, but it's self explanatory. The claim of "you don't use a circular saw to cut a plane's wing" is proven wrong by the recovery experts in that link using a circular saw to cut into a Vulcan bomber's wing.
It hardly needs further elaboration, but since you insist - a Victor (not a Vulcan) bomber was scrapped by being cut to pieces using circular saws. A Victor bomber was built to much higher standards of strength and durability than a civilian cargo aircraft like the C119 in this film. If a Victor bomber can be cut up with a circular saw as was shown in the link, then a C119 could be cut up by an angry boy scout armed with a tin opener.
Correction: Airplanes are made of aluminium, a softer metal than steel. Add in that since they would be using oil rig-grade equipment, their saws are likely more hardened than standard saw blades and quite possibly have diamond edges. Easily able to cut through the few millimeters thickness of a plane's aluminium skin.
30th May 2008
Back to the Future (1985)
Corrected entry: When Marty shows the video to the 1955 Doc, the 1985 Doc on the video states their location as the "Twin Pines Mall". Since Marty already knocked down one of the pines, the mall should've already been renamed to "Lone Pine Mall" on the video.
Correction: The timestream in the Back To The Future series is demonstrated as being somewhat resistant to changes; when Marty interferes with his parents' first meeting, he doesn't start to fade out for about a week after that happens. When Marty shows Doc the video, not enough time has passed for the effects of the timeline change to appear on the tape.
When someone time travels, they don't change the timeline they are from, they just create branching timelines every time someone makes a decision. This recording was made in the first timeline, so it would still be Twin Pines Mall.
That's not the case though. The photo Marty brings of his siblings fades out, newspaper headlines brought from the past/future change, etc.
Except he was slowly disappearing at the end of the movie. Which wouldn't happen if he was "branching off." They mix up linear timelines and parallel universes in these movies. They always, always screw up time travel movies.
1st Jul 2014
Premonition (2007)
Trivia: Kate Nelligan plays Sandra Bullock's mother in the movie, even though in real life she's only 14 years older than Bullock.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Google her age and you will see this is incorrect.
Or you could have just submitted a word change pointing out the age difference is 14 years rather than 13. Hardly makes the entry wholly incorrect.
27th Aug 2001
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Plot hole: When the warden comes into the cell the morning after the escape, the poster covering the hole is fastened down on all four corners - impossible to do after squeezing into that small hole. [On the DVD commentary, the director confirms that this was a movie "cheat".] (01:49:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's a shame the director surrendered, but for someone as smart as Andy, this is the smallest of problems. He could've put weights on the bottom of the poster, or used magnets he embedded in the walls together with iron glued to the poster, or enough washers in the bottom to essentially do both.
If he can make a six foot escape tunnel, he can scrape out several small holes around the poster's edge, and insert the aforementioned magnets, glued in however he can manage (ie tape, chewing gum).
He could have simply used glue mixed with dirt to weigh it down. Once the glue dried it wouldn't matter how heavy the poster was, so long as there was contact.
How could Andy do that after he escaped through the hole in the wall?
I don't think it's what happened, but easily enough. Put magnets in the wall during his tunnel digging process - he had years - then something magnetic affixed to the corners of the poster. As soon as he was in the hole the poster would hang down and affix itself to the bottom corners.
Further, if the poster weren't "glued" on the bottom, it would not have been taught enough for the warden's pebble to go through it. If the poster were attached loosely, the pebble would have simply bounced off.
21st Sep 2020
Top Gun (1986)
Question: Does anyone else think it was cheating for Jester to go below the hard deck after he was out-maneuvered by Maverick? He knew that it would be against the rules for Maverick to engage after he dropped below 10,000 ft.
Answer: Jester called "no joy" which ends the engagement. After that he can go below the hard deck, Maverick can't be credited with a kill that's below the hard deck and after the call of no joy.
In reality Jester's "No joy" ("I can't see you!") call would've been followed by Maverick's "Continue" ("I see you (and I'm about to shoot you down!")) and after that if Jester still would've gone under the hard deck the fight would've ended with a maneuver kill for Maverick. (enemy crashed into the ground). Only a "Knock it off" call would've ended the fight there and then.
Your answer is basically just explaining what Jester was trying to achieve, but didn't address the question of motive. Jester's claim was that due to an unsafe condition he needed to terminate the engagement, while Maverick believed he was doing it to avoid getting caught in a disadvantageous situation where he could be "hit." The movie makes it appear Maverick was right so Jester doing it was cheating. It would be like an athlete who is behind claiming an injury to end a match without anyone yet winning in order to avoid losing.
27th Aug 2001
The Matrix (1999)
Continuity mistake: When Trinity confronts the agent on the rooftop and says, "Dodge this", she points her gun to temple of the agent while his head is turned to her. He glances back, but never fully turns his head. The instant next shot shows him being shot facing Trinity with the gun in the middle of his forehead. (01:42:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually, I think that's correct and reflects how the agent 'took control' of his body. When he took on the pilot's form the pilot turns to the side in agony but the agents face actually appears from the side of his skull. So being shot in the temple then, would be consistent with a shot either to the front or the back of the head. In considering that the victim turn his head to the right when he was 'transformed' and given that agent was shot in the left temple, it would imply that the victim was actually shot in the back of the head? The would we saw should've been an exit wound, but it appeared to be an entry wound.
Not at all, all this occurs after the takeover has happened. The screenshot is pretty clear. He's facing forwards, gun at his temple, shot cuts and he's instantly facing Trinity, gun to his forehead.
Not at all, all this occurs after the takeover has happened. The screenshot is pretty clear. He's facing forwards, gun at his temple, shot cuts and he's instantly facing Trinity, gun to his forehead.
22nd Mar 2004
Die Hard (1988)
Question: Can someone please explain the scene where McClane and Hans are alone near the roof. Hans says his name is "Bill Clay" and the camera zooms in on a board with the name Clay on it. What is the significance of this? Does this give Hans away? And if so how?
Answer: No, this doesn't give Hans away - the zoom represents McClane checking the board out - getting proof that there is indeed a person in the building with that name (listed as W. Clay, for William). Hans has obviously done his homework, but McClane doesn't trust him anyway, hence the trick with the empty gun.
The zoom to the board occurs before McClane turns around to glance at it. Most likely Gruber was improvising here - he heeded a name, scanned the board quickly and picked one off it.
He doesn't turn - the name board is just behind Hans to his left, in John's direct eyeline.
Answer: John already knew what Hans looked like. He saw him through the vent on the top of the elevator (after sending Karl's brother down wearing the sweater) - He also saw Hans shoot Takagi (which is why he says "Just like you did with Takagi" after Hans says he's gonna count to three).
Answer: It ties in to the earlier scene when McClane first enters the lobby and has to look up his wife in the fancy directory. It seemed like a pointless scene, but it establishes that the ONLY people left in the building are on the 30th floor. Bill Clay works on the 29th floor, and so isn't actually in the building at all. Gruber doesn't know this, he just picked the name, and that is how McClane knew he was lying.
The people on the 30th floor were attending the party, regardless of what floor they worked on, so Clay could have been there. I agree with Tailkinker's answer about Hans having done his homework. It appears that Hans had noticed Clay's name on the board and improvised a cover. As the others indicated, McClane wasn't fooled, though I don't think McClane was positive it was Hans. He'd previously only caught glimpses of Hans while in the elevator and also when Takagi was shot, but he did not see his full-face or close-up. McClane likely recognized his voice, even with the American accent.
19th Nov 2003
The Simpsons (1989)
Tree House of Horror II: A Simpsons Halloween - S3-E7
Corrected entry: How can Moe not realize he got a prank call that's really long, and isn't even asking for a name? (00:11:35)
Correction: He does know that it's a prank call and that Bart is the one calling. He goes along with it because he doesn't want to make Bart mad.
I'm pretty sure that this is just an internet theory.
No, in this episode Bart has supernatural powers and the whole town lives in fear of him. He's making people do what he wants because he can.
6th Aug 2007
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Factual error: Firing a full magazine of blank cartridges from an automatic weapon in the police station office as McClane does would be painfully loud. Nobody shows the slightest effect - nobody even winces. Some of the men wince slightly but their reaction is grossly underplayed. Obviously the sound was looped in later. (01:37:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Every person jumps/winces and cowers out of the way of the bullets, one other officer even draws his gun in response.
What has never made any sense to me about this is that in a room full of cops everyone just stands around watching McClane seemingly gun down their Chief and only one officer even bothers to draw his gun.
Probably because everyone hates the chief. I wondered about that too.
Suggested correction: What makes the loud bang from guns is not the explosion of the gunpowder, but the bullet itself breaking the sound barrier as it leaves the gun. It's very noticeable when a gun fires a blank because it's so much quite, as the only sound is the small pop of the gunpowder inside. It's little more than the sound of a firecracker, but even more muffled by being inside metal.
Makes you wonder this gun makes the same sound as a gun loaded with real bullets, then. You can't have it both ways.
I have shot blank and live with the military. Both are loud, but sound different. More of a crack with live.
Blanks are very loud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6PESH5LSE0.
17th Jan 2020
The Core (2003)
Factual error: When they land the space shuttle in the river canal, they are approaching too low, so the commander commands to retract the gear. That would be impossible, as the landing gear of a space shuttle is controlled only by gravity. The gear can't be raised again after being deployed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The landing gears can be hydraulically retracted, per NASA.
Citation needed. NASA's website says "The nose and main landing gear can be retracted only during ground operations".
They're literally on the ground, hence ground operations.
14th Oct 2020
Annie (2014)
Question: When Mr. Stacks was telling Annie what ingredients to use, and she had only heard of two of them, which two was it?
Answer: Probably steak and tomatoes. But there's really no indication which ones she actually knew (and might have been exaggerating).
Answer: I'm not familiar with this specific part, and I don't know what the third ingredient was, but I'd assume that an orphan during that time period never heard of or had the opportunity to eat steak.
Also, the reply was "Google it." You must also be thinking of a different version of the film since it's not set in the past.
Might be better not to offer replies until you've seen the specific part of the film, given your answer isn't really answering the question asked.
Bishop73 said "probably steak and tomatoes" - which is a guess. Without knowing what the third ingredient was, it is reasonable to speculate that orphans, especially during that time period, never saw, heard of, or had eaten steak. Yes, it is best to actually see that part of the movie, but this is a question that the answer can reasonably be based on conditions of orphanages and the low quality of food fed to them.
Except I made an educated guess based on knowing the scene and all 6 ingredients and indicated there was no in-film indication what the character meant. You still think it was only 3 ingredients and set in the past.
I have seen several versions of "Annie" but none lately. Whether there were three ingredients, six, or a hundred, it is still plausible that an orphan never heard of steak. Perhaps an orphan might know there is a category of food called " meat", and the "slop" in the soup was called "meat." Kids in orphanages were not treated well, were barely fed enough, and the "food" usually was not what would be called nutritious, especially when eaten day after day. Something like steak would not be likely to be served to orphans largely because the institution's limited food budget would be prohibitive - therefore, only cheap foods would be available and many orphans were hungry. Even in contemporary society, steak is not something likely to be served to kids in institutions like group homes.You might be surprised at the type of things kids who come from poverty situations don't know about. [Even some kids from wealthy families don't know that French fries are made from potatoes.]
None of this seems relevant to the actual question. Bishop73's answer was a reasonable speculation which was already qualified, and which you're nitpicking for no good reason. His other answer details all the ingredients involved and you're fixating on "an orphan wouldn't have heard of steak". We don't KNOW, so going on a diatribe about the hypothetical knowledge of orphans is way off topic. Not least because THIS version of Annie has her as a foster kid, not an orphan, and "that time period" is 2014. If you've got a better answer you can provide it as a direct answer, but excessively critiquing someone else's answer isn't helpful or productive.
There's a difference between knowing what steak is and eating it. There were 6 ingredients (not 3); fusilli, pancetta, steak, pomegranate, truffle, and sun-dried tomatoes. You think an orphan is more familiar with fusilli, pancetta, truffle or pomegranate over steak?
Yes, other than pomegranates.
If she was never exposed to steak, she would not know what it was.
Yes, if she was never exposed to steak she wouldn't know it, which is why I said there was no indication. But I can't imagine a scenario where an orphan wasn't exposed to steak, but was exposed to fusilli, pancetta, truffle or pomegranate. I'm an adult that's eaten a lot of different things and I've never had any of those 4 items (although I know what they are), so it's more likely an orphan knows steak, especially it the generic sense as opposed to a specific type of steak being mentioned.
27th Aug 2001
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Factual error: When the terrorist clears the nearly fuel-exhausted plane to land on the lowered ILS, the terrorist says, "Windsor 114, you are cleared to land on Dulles Runway 29, ILS." Problem is: There is no Runway 29 at Dulles. The closest runway alignment for a 290 degree heading is Runway 30. (00:53:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Runway numbers are based on the magnetic heading of the runway, and since the earth's magnetic field is in constant motion, a runway's magnetic heading can and does change over time. As an example, my local airport's main runway is 30/12, but 10 years ago it was numbered 31/13. Therefore, it is possible that in 1990, what is now runway 30 at Dulles was numbered 29.
Random guesswork isn't a valid correction. A simple google search will show that runway 30 at Dulles has been called that since it was opened in 1962. In 1990 there were 3 runways at Dulles: 1C/19C, 1R/19L, and 12/30.
6th Feb 2008
Top Gun (1986)
Factual error: No part of the Indian Ocean could be described as 'enemy territory' for US ships in 1986.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not even Iran? Yemen?
No. Territorial waters don't extend all that far off the coast, and the water nearer those countries is the Gulf of Oman / Gulf of Aden / Arabian Sea, and wouldn't be referred to as the Indian Ocean.
17th Jun 2003
Star Wars (1977)
Corrected entry: If Luke was a little short to be a stormtrooper how come the suit was a perfect fit?
Correction: Considering the number of storm troopers in the empire, they would not customize each set of armor. I imagine the black areas between the white armor segments are flexible and can stretch/shrink making the armor, one-size-fits-all.
All the stormtroopers are clones of the same person, Jango Fett, meaning they are all the same size.
Not by this point - the Empire had been phasing out clones since the end of the Clone Wars and replacing them with recruits. The clones aged too quickly to stay in service, and conscription, etc. was simpler and cheaper.
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: Having watched the movie again, this can be explained by the previous scene where the Terminator kills Ginger and her boyfriend. It reloads the pistol but doesn't chamber a round before Sarah calls and leaves the message saying where she is. The Terminator then puts the pistol down and quickly rifles through Sarah's belongings before leaving so presumably it only thinks to finish readying its weapons once it's reached the Tech Noir bar and has Sarah in its sight. Either that, or it's actually doing a brass check (pull the slide back just enough to confirm there's a bullet in the chamber) before firing.
You mean such a sophisticated and advanced killing machine can't keep count of the bullets and has to check if the gun is loaded? I know the terminator runs out of bullets many times in the movie, it's great for entertainment but not for verisimilitude. Of course, if the perfect machine didn't make mistakes the movie would last 15 minutes and be extremely boring.