Corrected entry: While Adam Sandler is taking the proficiency test in the gym, he is told that it is a 300 question multiple choice test and is handed a Scantron sheet. The Scantron sheet he is given though only has 100 sets of bubbles, 50 on each side.
Bishop73
22nd Jan 2002
The Waterboy (1998)
19th Mar 2003
The Waterboy (1998)
Corrected entry: In the short scene where Bobby is standing in front of his class holding a large molecule, the diagram of the molecule can be seen on the blackboard. In part of this diagram a carbon atom 'C' can be seen bonded to five other atoms. As all good chemists know however, carbon can only form four bonds and so this molecule could not possibly exist.
Correction: The carbon/four bonds statement is wrong. CH5 is methanium. That's five hydrogen atoms bonded to one carbon.
This isn't quite accurate. In Methanium, 2 of the hydrogen molecules share 1 electron which means 2 hydrogens share 1 bond so that there's still just 4 bonds. Methanium is CH5+ or CH3 (H2) + not CH5. What is on the board doesn't indicate any shared electrons and couldn't exist. That being said, there could be a number of suggestion as to why this wouldn't be classified as a mistake, but this correction isn't one of them.
5th Mar 2022
Monk (2002)
Question: Is there a reason they chose the last names Monk and/or Teeger?
Answer: I couldn't find any info on the name "Teeger," but Monk got his name because they wanted to come up with a simple, single-syllable name for the protagonist that could easily stick in your head. They eventually settled on "Monk," which seemed to fit the character.
Just learned Bitty Schram's middle name is Natalie. Of course I'm overthinking it, but it's interesting.
Obviously without confirmation from a writer that's where they got the name, you can't be sure. But it is an interesting fact that makes it seem plausible that the writers used her middle name as a tribute when she was let go from the show.
15th Mar 2022
The Karate Kid (2010)
Question: Since this is a movie solely based on Kung Fu (and not karate), why wasn't this film titled "The Kung Fu Kid"? It seems it would also help separate confusion between this film and the 1984 Karate Kid film.
Answer: While there was discussion to name the film "The Kung Fu Kid", it was ultimately decided to keep the original, and more familiar, title since the film is considered a reboot. Not only is the story line the same, there are many elements from the original film seen in the reboot. And, had Ralph Macchio not turned it down, he would have had a cameo. It should be noted that the title in China is "The Kung Fu Dream" (功夫梦).
Answer: There was a comic book titled, "The Kung-Fu Kid," so there were copyright issues.
Titles, names, slogans, and short phrases cannot be copyrighted. In some instances, they can be trademarked.
The original answer does seem suspect without a source, but it should be noted that there was a DC Comics series before the original film called "The Karate Kid" and Columbia Pictures had to get special permission from DC Comics to use the name. All the films even acknowledges the name is used with consent. There definitely could have been a lawsuit if DC Comics didn't want to give permission.
Answer: Even though it's incorrect, "Karate Kid" is the catchier and familiar title, indicating it is a reboot of the popular original series, making it more marketable. It also uses an alliteration that rolls off the tongue easier. "Jurassic Park" is another example of a deliberate misnomer in a movie title. The dinosaurs depicted in that film were from the Late Cretaceous period, millions of years after the Jurassic. "Cretaceous Park" just didn't sound as good.
3rd Mar 2022
Groundhog Day (1993)
Question: At the end of the film, Phil finally wakes up in bed with Rita on the day after Groundhog Day (meaning he's finally broken out of the time-loop and temporal continuity is restored). Doesn't this necessarily imply that everything he did the day before will have repercussions for him? I mean, as far as everyone knows, Phil Connors just suddenly became a local sensation in one day, flashing a lot of money on the same day as the armored car robbery. Wouldn't Phil naturally fall under suspicion?
Answer: On that particular previous day, he didn't rob the armored car. All he did was spend the day doing good deeds and the only repercussions will be people thinking highly of him.
A huge part of his "good deeds," no doubt, was his flashing a lot of money around town, buying a full insurance package from Ned, paying the piano teacher a significant wad of cash, gifting the newlyweds tickets for their honeymoon, etc. That's a big part of how Phil became so beloved by so many townspeople in one day. Plus, he bought the ice-carving chainsaw and who knows what else. He wasn't just pulling all that cash out of thin air. I think robbing the armored car every morning had become second-nature to Phil.
Phil seemed to be trying to do everything just right to break the cycle. It's unlikely he would choose to rob the armor truck. And it's unlikely the truck was robbed that day. However, Phil was a professional with a good paying job. Rita herself had almost $400 in cash on her. If Phil didn't have that much cash on him, he could easily get it from the bank and then write checks (or use a credit card) for everything else.
18th Dec 2007
Friends (1994)
Continuity mistake: After Chandler makes the joke about Joey cracking show business, Joey is holding the phone in his left hand. In the next shot, it is in his right hand. (00:11:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You can actually see him switch it to the other hand before the next scene pops up if you look close enough.
Not for the shot the mistake is talking about. Throughout the scene he's switching the phone back and forth. But after Chandler's line, Joey is just standing there with the phone in his left hand, he doesn't make any move to switch hands. In the next shot, the wide shot from the side showing everyone, you see the phone is in his right hand.
25th Feb 2022
Venom (2018)
Question: Since the new film "Spider-Man: No Way Home" establishes that the MCU, the Tobey Maguire Spiderman trilogy, the two "Amazing Spider-Man" films and these "Venom" films all exist in the same multi-verse, could Tom Hardy's Eddie Brock possibly be native to the same universe as Andrew Garfield's Spiderman?
Answer: Possibly, but very unlikely. The mid-credits scene in Spider-Man: No Way Home sees Eddie Brock telling his bartender that he intends to go to New York to "talk to this Spider-Man guy" (paraphrased), which would suggest he's never heard of Spider-Man before, and if he occupied the same universe as the Andrew Garfield version, he would definitely know who Spider-Man is, not least because Eddie is an investigative journalist, and Spider-Man would undoubtedly be one of, if not the most, famous persons on the planet.
Answer: No, it's established that Tom Hardy's Venom is in a universe of his own. The mid-credit scene of "Let There Be Carnage," shows him jumping into the MCU and seeing Spider-Man for the first time. At the end of "No Way Home," he wants to go to New York, but is pulled back, but leaving a piece behind. Somebody will be Venom in the MCU, maybe rich kid Eddie Brock, his arrongance would be perfect for Venom.
Venom, as in the symbiote, knows who Spider-Man is and has been to multiple universes. It's Eddie Brock that seems unaware of Spider-Man. Although there was that "incident at the Daily Globe", which in the comics is what started Brock's hatred of Spider-Man.
Answer: I agree it's unlikely he's in the Garfield universe. At the time of the film, Tom Holland was already Spider-Man. It would be different if this Venom film came out before 2016. But the Symbiote has been to other universes in the multiverse as explained in "Venom: Let There Be Carnage", so it's possible it's been to the Garfield universe and could be the same one from the Maguire universe.
25th Feb 2022
The Simpsons (1989)
Question: I, like Marge, don't know much about football. Why is Homer disappointed to own the Denver Broncos team? I know his first choice was owning the Dallas Cowboys, but he seems to especially dislike the Broncos.
Answer: I don't think the writers had anything particular in mind when choosing the Denver Broncos to be the butt of the joke. But I wonder if it's meant to be a clue where Springfield is. But, while this episode did air late 1996 when the Broncos had a winning season, given the amount of time needed to produce the episode, it was written when the Broncos were a mediocre team at best. From '92-'95 they had a 32-32 record and never finished higher than 3rd in their division. And the Cowboys and Broncos are in separate conferences, so they're not particularly rivals. But as Phaneron points out, the Broncos ended up winning back-to-back Super Bowls in the following 2 season after this episode aired, so Homer is a very lucky guy.
Probably also worth mentioning that by the time this episode had aired, the Broncos had an 0-4 record in the Super Bowl, and to this day I believe they hold the record for most Super Bowl losses.
The Buffalo Bills also had an 0-4 record at the time of airing having lost 4 straight years.
The Vikings are also 0-4 in the Super Bowl. The Patriots have 5 losses (although only had 1 at the time this episode aired).
True, and they would have been a funnier pick for Homer to end up owning, given that two consecutive of those four Super Bowl losses were to the Cowboys. Although Homer fantasizing about being John Elway in the episode Cape Feare makes his disdain for the Broncos rather funny.
24th Jan 2011
Superman (1978)
Question: What caused Krypton to explode?
Answer: That's the updated comic book version. In the movie and the original origin story their red sun was going super nova and caused Krypton's orbit to shift.
Jor-El's conversation with the Science Council in the movie is all about the planet's core.
You must be thinking of a different movie. There wasn't any mention of the core and when Jor-El says the planet will explode, the reply is the planet is just shifting orbit. Later, Jor-El tells 18 year old Clark they will enter the realm of the red Krypton sun, the cause of their destruction. The answer about Krypton's sun is correct.
I went and looked up the script and it DOES say orbit. OK, you're right.
Chosen answer: An atomic chain-reaction in the planet's core. The explosion also irradiated the fragments of the planet, which is why kryptonite is deadly to Superman.
17th Feb 2022
The Walking Dead (2010)
Question: Maybe I missed a full explanation or it's a plot hole for the show, but how do Michonne's armless, jawless walkers on a leash help mask her scent or let her walk among the walkers?
Answer: The other walkers see the two already upon her, figure that she's already taken, and move on.
What do you mean "upon her" if they're in front of her and walking forward?
A satisfactory answer hasn't really been given. The general consensus on Reddit is that having the two tame rotting zombies close by overpowers her own smell and the zombies can't detect her. In my previous answer, I was thinking that it was a psychological tactic. The other zombies see that they're about to eat her and about to attack, figure "that one's taken," and move on. This time, I'll go with the internet's answer.
I broke this question up into 2 because I ran out of room. But, yeah, I thought the idea was either mask her smell or make other Walkers think she's "taken." But in the show, those options don't seem to work for other characters.
"Upon" as in "They are about to descend down on their prey."
Yes, but I was asking about times when they're in front of her and she's following, not that ever showed any signs of descending down on her.
Well, zombies don't look that carefully to distinguish "Oh, those guys are walking in front of her instead of about to throw her on the ground and eat her. Let's get really hung up on the word "upon" now, shall we?"
It was my polite way of letting you admit you didn't know what you were talking about and were guessing with a total BS answer.
Ah. Well, I DID admit that earlier.
27th Aug 2001
Commando (1985)
Continuity mistake: Rae fires a rocket at the police van, first she fires it back to front then the second time she fires it correctly only this time she is knocked back by the recoil, why wasn't she affected the first time and pushed forward? Also there should be no recoil with a rocket launch. (00:57:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She was pushed forward against the front windshield which kept her upright whereas when firing it the right way she was thrown backward into the back seat. And rocket launchers will have some measure of recoil from the propulsion of the rocket firing out of the front of the launcher, how much depends on the time and force of the rockets being firing as every weapon has some form of recoil from firing.
Rocket launchers don't have the recoil you think. The propulsion of the rocket firing out of the front is countered by the gases expelling out the back behind the shooter. But if she was pushed forward (which she's not), her waist was above the top of the windshield, so the top of her body would should still lean over, even if it didn't cause her to topple over like she does with the seat.
2nd Feb 2020
Midway (2019)
Other mistake: At the end, it states "Clarence Dickinson became a 'Real' Admiral..." instead of Rear Admiral. (02:04:17)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I just had the chance to watch the movie again. It says "Rear" not "Real" as alleged in this entry.
I watched just now and my version also shows "Real" rather than "Rear." Perhaps this was fixed only in some releases.
What version did you watch? I see "Rear." Perhaps a screenshot is needed.
28th Mar 2016
The Andy Griffith Show (1960)
Question: When Peggy is mad at Andy and storms away she gets into a car with the steering wheel on the right side. I'm just curious as to why?
Answer: Steering wheel looked like it was on the right hand side. Maybe the car was an import from England.
Answer: From what I see, the steering wheel is on the left hand side. She just happens to get in on the passenger side, to avoid going around the car into the street or the bushes were blocking her way.
Answer: I answered a similar question about this show, and I'll repost what was from the Internet as a possible reason: This could be production-related in setting up the shot. For example, getting in on the passenger side can be shot as a locked-down tripod shot. Getting in on the driver side means the character has to walk around the car, requiring at minimum a pan/tilt/zoom and probably a dolly shot to make it look good (they didn't have Steadicams back then, so any time the camera had to move, a dolly track had to built for it to roll on). That would add expense and time to what was really just an establishing shot. This was a low-budget, weekly TV show, and scenes would shot in the easiest, fastest, and most economical way possible, even if it seems somewhat illogical.
Except the way the shot was set up, the camera wouldn't have had to follow her walking around the car. Being equipment-related is the least likely reason.
3rd Feb 2022
General questions
I feel like this might be an Eddie Murphy movie, but an adult (Murphy?) for some reason is trying to bribe a kid (maybe to be quiet about something) with a coupon for a scone. The kid's reply is something like "a scone? What do I look like, the queen of England?" When I search for the quote, all I get is pictures of the queen and scone recipes.
Answer: The movie you're looking for is "Imagine That", which has got Eddie Murphy in it. The quote in question is present in the trailer for the movie https://youtu.be/s2kYKjwsmS8.
Thank you for that.
18th Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Stupidity: In the first part of the movie, Peter has to deal with the various 'visitors' and bring them too Strange. But the device Strange will use is just going to send them home no matter where they are (conveniently at the push of a button that even complete ignoramus can push) and there are visitors he does not know about, so everything up to that point has been meaningless. Then it becomes a matter of 'curing' every one of those visitors, but if -as it seems - they have been fetched moments before their deaths, 'curing' them is not going to fix anything. They are still going to die or end up in prison for life due to the horrors they committed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Part of the problem we have is that instead of just dealing with the Multiverse, they're also creating parallel or alternate realities in those universes since everyone is pulled from a different point in time in their realities, so any changes besides their death is going to create a new timeline. And I think part of the plan to send them back cured was that from their they could change their course of action or be able to reason with their Spider-Man, which would mean it's better than nothing.
Yes, that's the idea, with all the problems we underlined and the movie ignores entirely. Much like when in Avengers Endgame they don't show you how Cap brings back the stones with the precision required, they elegantly skipped showing us if and how each of them avoids being impaled, drowned, dissolved, or how does it even work for those fetched by the 'same' timeline. We'll see if they deal with these messy timelines at any point in the future.
Suggested correction: With the exception of Doc Ock - who learned Spidey's identity shortly before he died - there's nothing to suggest the other villains were fetched from their realities moments before their deaths, or that they will die upon returning to their realities. Whether or not they end up in prison after returning is irrelevant to the fact that Peter wants to help them. If he doesn't cure them, then they are free to continue causing mayhem regardless of what reality they are occupying.
It's stated in the film that BOTH Otto and Norman died while fighting Spider-Man and that both were pulled from their reality shortly before dying. Max then recounts his fight before being pulled and says "I was about to die." Then Curt asks Max if he died too, but they get interrupted before we find out.
"Shortly" is a relative term. Goblin discovered Spider-Man's identity at Thanksgiving dinner and then died a day or two later. Electro's fate was rather ambiguous, but Jamie Foxx himself implied prior to The Amazing Spider-Man 2's release that he would be appearing in more films, likely including the Sinister Six movie that never came to fruition. We know from The Amazing Spider-Man that Lizard didn't die.
"Shortly before dying" as in pulled during the fight that they died during, not a few days before. It wasn't about being pulled when they found out who Spider-Man was.
Even so, if Green Goblin is pulled from his reality 5 minutes before his death, that would be considered shortly, but it certainly wouldn't be mere moments before he died as the original entry was suggesting. The movie never explicitly states how soon before their deaths they were pulled, therefore we as viewers can reasonably assume that there could have been just enough time for them to alter their course of actions and prevent their deaths.
Also, the reason why Peter wants to 'cure' them is not because they are causing mayhem, but as he explicitly says, because he's not comfortable sending them back when 'some' of them will die - thing is, he can't know that curing their conditions will save them, the whole idea kinda comes out of nowhere. I submitted it as Stupidity because I was sure someone would object it's not a plot hole since it's just stuff the characters 'believe' and there's no proof it's true, however it's funny that 90% of the stuff Peter does in this movie is probably completely pointless.
Saying that he can't know that curing their conditions won't save them is like a doctor saying they won't give a cancer patient chemotherapy because they don't know if it will save them. Their chances of being saved are certainly better if they are cured and cease fighting Spider-Man. If Osborn is returned cured before he attempts to impale Spider-Man with his glider, then that would certainly prevent him from dying in that situation.
I absolutely respect the fact that they want Spidey to be heroic and that the moment he knows that they are going to die he wants to do something about it, that's why I say that it's just funny that there's no indication at all that it would work (by all logic it would not) but it's elegantly glossed over. Let me remind you though that he's not a doctor that wants to cure his sick patient, he's a doctor that wants to cure someone who died 1-2 decades earlier in accidents he doesn't really get into the details of.
There not being an indication that it would work does not make it a stupidity. He can't let the villains remain in his reality, or else it will cause a major multiversal catastrophe. He doesn't want to send them back to their realities and die fighting other Spider-Men, so he does what he thinks is his best option. For this to be a stupidity, there would have to be a rather obvious alternate solution that he overlooked (such as asking Strange to make everyone forget Mysterio's broadcast instead of making everyone forget Peter Parker is Spider-Man).
I don't want to make my own movie in my head, the one we got is more than enjoyable, and I don't want to say that the character is stupid (any movie would be easily solved with afterthought or cynicism, such as "let Strange do his thing"); I merely pointed out that the plot takes you for a ride forcing you to buy premises that are taken as 100% fact and logical (they never ever even imply the fact that what Peter does could be pointless or problematic - in most movies, saving dead people is not a good idea) when they are anything but that. If I know that a crazy person died driving a car into a tree, curing his craziness is one step and not even the most important (would a crazy Norman not survive, if he goes back in time at the right moment and knows what is going to happen? again, the bigger flaw being that if he remembers dying, how can I undo that?) but the movie is surely not going for the "It's most certainly useless, but aww, at least he tried" angle.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters can get inside the museum when the Statue of Liberty breaks the museum's ceiling light. Good, but the whole museum was surrounded by a shell of slime that extended above it too. The Ghostbusters do nothing to open a hole in the slime, nor they could know it would open, and the Statue has nothing to do with it. (01:31:45)
Correction: I think you somehow completely missed the point of them bringing in the statue in the first place. They animate the statue and walk it through the streets to act as a symbol to bring out the positive emotions/good vibes of the people. The positivity weakens the negatively-fueled slime shell enough for them to get inside. They quite literally show people cheering in the streets and the slime "retreating" from the ceiling windows as a result. Watch this clip, it explains their plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2wtteHUGjg.
Correction: The positive slime caused the negative slime to retreat. You can see this happening when the statue bends over the museum.
As I said, they do nothing to open a hole, it just happens; the Statue is close to a whole side of the museum that is covered in goop, but does not distance itself from it. Does it react to the music speakers? To the torch's warmth? It's just random stuff that happens. Which is totally fine in a movie like this, but does not prevent from noting it. However, since the whole idea of using the statue comes to them because they need to 'crack' the barrier, I'd say you are right there; they didn't know how and if it would work perhaps, but the idea IS set up. I still think the visual representation of it is inconsistent, since I don't get why the hole would open in that area of all areas.
I didn't think it had anything to do with touching the negative slime first. The negative slime was weakened by the positive emotions of the crowd, and their positive emotions came from seeing the Statue and Ghostbusters coming down the street, and the statue came to life with the positive slime and music. In the weakened state, the negative slime started to retract without the Ghostbusters needing to do anything else. They would have seen the ceiling being uncovered and then broke in that way.
Yup, Bishop73 got it 100% correct. They state in the movie that they need a symbol to bring out the positivity to get through the slime, and the movie shows the slime retreating after the crowds outside cheer for them in the statue. (Not sure where lionhead got the idea that it was the positive slime that did it, since the movie does not indicate that at all).
Positive feedback here. It shows the positive slime is more powerful than the negative slime. That's why they hose Janosz, Ray and Vigo in the end with the positive slime. It thinks all together the positive energy of the crowd caused the positive slime to grow and become even more powerful and the negative slime to retreat. That's how I always interpreted it at least. But you can go several ways here. In any case, it's not random.
Ah I see! You see sufficient visual correlation between the crowd cheering and the slime retracting, I don't see that, so the fact that the slime opens up freeing the skylight doesn't feel visually correlated with the 'mobilization of positive energy' thingy. Later it 'weakens' reacting in a different manner.
19th Mar 2016
Star Trek (1966)
Revealing mistake: A straight and level seam connecting the top and bottom halves of the tunnel Spock is crawling through is visible.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Views of the tunnels made before the creature was wounded by Kirk and Spock appear almost perfectly smooth. It is explained that the creature exudes a powerful acid to dissolve the rock. This tunnel was made after the creature was wounded, so it is logical that the wounded portion of the creature would secrete less acid thus leaving an imperfection as the creature tunnels. This could be a case of incredible attention to detail by the set designer rather than an error revealed.
This correction is too much of a stretch to explain a perfect seam by the wounded Horta. Plus, if the Horta was secreting less corrosive substance, then that area would be less eroded, not more. If attention to detail was paid, then the area would have an outward seam, not an inward one.
5th Mar 2015
The Dark Knight (2008)
Question: Why couldn't both Harvey and Rachel be saved?
Chosen answer: There was not enough time. Only the Batmobile was fast enough to save one of them, hence the police being late to the other location. The Joker made sure one would die.
Assuming they sent all the other units to find Dent (Rachel instead), wouldn't it have been helpful and faster to send some cop patrolling near that location to save her? As fast as Batman was with his technology, another cop who might have been close to the location could have gotten there in time I would guess. Or am I missing something?
I think several things are in play (but me speculating). First, the cops were busy trying to safeguard Dent and then apprehend the Joker. Think Die Hard 3 were all the cops were so busy "you could steal City Hall." So while there might be some cops on patrol, not close enough. But given the level of precision in Joker's plan, it seemed like the explosion was going to go off when the cops got there, so even if they got there sooner, the place would still explode.
But I will admit that the Joker's "precision" really seems to be sheer dumb luck that we're suppose to accept as his criminal mastermind plan.
Yes, it could be indeed or maybe like Nolan said: Joker is a mysterious unstoppable force (resourceful one at that) that suddenly appeared. Gotham's extreme corruption at the time allowed for a psychotic (or anarchist if you will) one like Joker to play his cards with more freedom as well, which I think some people forget to consider. In that sense, Bane had to do things differently because the aforementioned aspect was highly reduced after TDK events.
True. With many things at play, possible situations and Joker's preparation, there can be multiple reasons why everything happened the way it did (the film makes a wise decision to not over explain this and leave it to imagination), specially because Joker most likely wanted one of them to die, or they would have both died anyway since explosion occurred either way. Based on everything Joker did, maybe it was always supposed to be Rachel. He wanted to make a point with Dent and Bats after all.
14th Jun 2004
Scream (1996)
Continuity mistake: When Casey puts the two videos on top of the TV, she puts them on top of each other so they are placed neatly. Then when she picks up the letter opener off the TV later, the videos are no longer stacked neatly. (00:08:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: To be fair, we don't see (at least in the DVD version I am looking at?) the VHS boxes for the entirety of the time her hand is on it, and she does bump against the TV set at least twice while talking to the killer, once with the top of the set entirely off-camera.
I would say it's a valid mistake because we do see a shot of the tapes later, and they're still neatly placed (for example, when she says her boyfriend will be there any second), so we know she didn't do anything to them when her hand was off camera. And I never saw any bump hard enough after her boyfriend is killed that would move the top case into the new position it's in.
Factual error: During the baseball game in the beginning if you look in the background you can see several palm trees in the background. The movie takes place in Ohio where there are no palm trees. (00:09:15 - 00:10:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Ohio is never specified as the state where the Nightmare movies take place until later in the series. As long as the state is unspecified as it is in Nightmare 2 and 1, visible palm trees are not a mistake.
All the films are supposed to take place in the same city. So if part 6 takes place in Springwood, Ohio, than so does this one.
While it would be true that the location in all previous films are now Ohio, it's hard to say if it's a mistake for the first 5 films, especially if there's no evidence for it being set in Ohio and evidence points to California. It would be more appropriate to make an entry in the 6th film saying the Ohio location contradicts what has been already seen. Otherwise, you would have to make a mistake entry every time the first 5 films reveal it's not set in Ohio, but filmed in California.
Suggested correction: Per the screenplays, the first two movies take place in Los Angeles.
I believe it was Wes Craven's intention to mention it's set in Los Angeles, but the actual script and film never state where Elm Street is located. It was an un-named suburb.
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.
Correction: There are three sheets stapled together.
There's nothing to suggest there were 3 scantrons stapled together. The way Bobby starts filling it out, you only see one. And afterwards Vicki is holding just one scantron that had Bobby's score.
Bishop73