Question: What object was in the gorilla mother's hand when she died?
Charles Austin Miller
10th Aug 2016
The Legend of Tarzan (2016)
Answer: It was some type of egg.
17th Aug 2021
Nobody (2021)
Factual error: The film begins and ends with Hutch handcuffed in custody, being interrogated by two police detectives. He was apprehended at the scene of a major violent crime with many fatalities, he has a gunshot wound, and he's a likely murder suspect. In real life, Hutch would be strip searched and treated for injuries under tight security, and he would not be allowed to carry personal effects into the subsequent interrogation. But during the interrogation, Hutch impossibly produces a pack of cigarettes and lighter, a can of cat food, a metal can opener and a live kitten from inside his jacket.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You're missing the concept that he was a special individual. He would not be treated as you suggest, because of the uniqueness of his character.
His "special" status was unknown until the end of the film, when the two detectives simultaneously receive phone calls with orders to release him. Before that, he was still in handcuffs and being interrogated, and his identity was still a mystery to the police.
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.
6th Jun 2017
Midnight Special (2016)
Question: In the very last scene, we see Michael Shannon in shackles (presumably in a federal prison) with electroencephalographic sensors attached to his forehead and scalp, oddly gazing at the sunrise as two prison guards flank him. In the very last shot of the film, a closeup of his face, we see his eyes faintly glow for a split-second as he smiles a very slight smile. Question: Is the film implying that Alton is in otherworldly contact with his father, or that his father absorbed some of Alton's otherworldly power; or is it implying that, being the boy's biological father, he was the source of Alton's power? In any event, this may never be revealed, because the film barely made back one-third of its $18 million production budget, making the probability of a sequel highly unlikely.
Answer: I wasn't sure what to make of it, but I got the impression that he was communicating with Alton like he had done when Alton ran from the truck. I also thought his smile was perhaps in reaction to what Alton told him and/or the two were making fun of (mocking) the use of electrodes because they knew the electrodes would not have any effect on him.
P.S. Plenty of lousy movies have had sequels, so it is possible there could be a "Midnight Special 2".
Not necessarily holding my breath.
A sequel doesn't seem likely. Hope you weren't holding your breath waiting for an answer to your question.
23rd Nov 2016
Star Trek Beyond (2016)
Question: On the way to Starbase Yorktown, McCoy joins Kirk for a drink; Kirk is already drinking something illegal. McCoy shows him something he found in Chekov's locker, and they both enjoy it tremendously. Exactly what was McCoy doing rummaging around in Chekov's locker? Was it some sort of contraband check?
Chosen answer: This scene from "Star Trek: Beyond" is an alternate-timeline version of the scene from "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" in which McCoy brings Kirk an illegal bottle of Romulan Ale as a birthday gift (so we know that McCoy isn't above bending or breaking the law a little in obtaining a gift for Kirk). In "Beyond," this scene was re-imagined with Kirk already drinking illegal Saurian Brandy for his birthday, and McCoy surprises him with a very old bottle of Scotch Whisky from Chekov's locker. More than likely, McCoy knew very well that Chekov kept a prized bottle of Scotch in his locker, and McCoy simply took the bottle. What was Chekov going to do, report the Chief Medical Officer to the Captain?
Or in the future it is not above humanity to be willing to share things more than now. Maybe Chekov had given his approval for anyone to partake in a drink that he may possess, as it is no big deal.
The point is made in Beyond that McCoy "took" the scotch from Chekov's locker. If Chekov freely shared his prized bottle of scotch, McCoy should have said, "Here's a gift from Mr. Chekov, and he sends best wishes." To me, the larger question is why was Chekov hiding a bottle of liquor in a "locker" when he could have more easily kept it in his personal quarters? Perhaps because the contents of personal quarters were easily monitored, so Chekov had to HIDE it in a less conspicuous area.
23rd Oct 2021
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Question: Why is there is such an absence of love in this film? Two birthdays are observed. Dr. Haywood Floyd calls his little 5-year-old daughter on Earth, wishes her happy birthday, but never once says "I love you," which seems only a natural thing for a father to tell his child. Later, astronaut Frank Poole's parents wish him happy birthday, but never once say "I love you"; rather, his father says, "Give our love to Dave (Bowman). " Nobody ever says "I love you," despite the dire circumstances.
Answer: I love this question, and I think the answer will vary, perhaps wildly, depending on who answers it. Here's mine: one of the themes of the film is that, despite these amazing leaps in technology, colonising the moon, and manned travel to distant planets, humanity has gradually become more and more like the machines we create: cold, emotionless, unfeeling. In other words, we've lost our capacity for human connection. This is why Kubrick shoots these scenes you mention in such a cold, distant way. It asks us to consider the cost that comes with technological advances that outpace our emotional development.
Good reply. Yeah, all the human dialogue in this film seems purely information-driven, if not outright expository. Cold, humorless, oddly devoid of emotion. Especially the dialogue and character of Frank Poole (played by Gary Lockwood); he shows no emotion or affection for his parents, as if only just tolerating their birthday greetings. For me, this made it difficult to feel any sense of loss when Frank Poole was later murdered by HAL. Maybe most oddly, the computer HAL seems to speak with the most emotion (desperation and fear) when Dave Bowman finally disconnects HAL's higher brain functions. I mean, that's the most poignant dialogue in the film, when the computer pleads for its life.
6th Sep 2021
Free Guy (2020)
Plot hole: When Guy kisses her, she questions how he did it - stating no "kiss" function existed in the game. However, later on after the reboot she proceeds to kiss him (rather than him kiss her).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As one of the principal developers of the simulation engine, Millie recognizes that Guy is a non-player character (NPC) who merely obeys a loop of coded actions, and he's supposedly incapable of acting outside of his code. So, she means that NPCs can't just arbitrarily kiss players. Players can do whatever they want, but NPCs are mindless robots. At that point, however, she doesn't realise that Guy's Artificial Intelligence has evolved to independent self-awareness, allowing him to act outside of his code.
Key's actually says "There isn't a button for that" when Millie brings it up. There would be no way for her to initiate, as her in game actions would be limited to the controls offered.
By the time Millie kisses Guy, we know that the Free City simulation engine was already undergoing Artificial Intelligence evolution, essentially rewriting its own code, allowing Guy (and other NPCs) to achieve independent self-awareness. It follows that Free City was probably rewriting its player code, as well, making all sorts of new and startling functions possible for players and NPCs alike.
10th Oct 2021
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: In this film, Marty suddenly appears and spends one week in 1955. So, how does Marty freely roam the hallways and cafeteria at Hill Valley High School (even getting into a physical altercation with another student) without challenge from teachers and administrators such as Mr. Strickland? All the kids are talking about Marty, but nobody in authority questions the fact that he's not enrolled, he's completely undocumented, he doesn't attend any classes, and he's apparently a troublemaker.
Answer: High school in the 1950s was different from today, which has tight security and students are more closely scrutinized. Not every teacher, and even Strickland, knows every student, so Marty would not necessarily be immediately suspected as an outsider. And though the students are talking about Marty, that doesn't mean the adults are aware. Teens have their own closed-off society. Being as Marty was only in the past for a week, and he isn't at the school all that much, he could conceivably move about mostly unnoticed. If he was there any longer, the school would eventually wise up about him. Also, it's a movie, and suspension of disbelief is employed here. The audience just accepts the plot's premise.
Thanks. But I also remember (giving away my age) that teachers and administrators back then were very much aware of students "playing hooky" (skipping classes and wandering around the halls and off-campus during school hours). Back then there were even "truant officers" who patrolled the streets looking for school-age kids skipping school. With all of the attention to 1950s detail in this film, I was really kind of surprised that no-one apparently suspected Marty of truancy.
I also remember those days. As I mentioned, since Marty was only briefly at the high school during the one-week period he was in the past, he hadn't yet attracted enough attention to be considered a problem or a truant. It can be seen that Strickland notices Marty, but had not yet considered anything as being amiss.
4th Jan 2019
The Terminator (1984)
Question: How exactly do both the Terminator and Kyle find addresses? We are led to believe that is the reason for the phone books, but none of the addresses in the phone books match up to the addresses where either the first Sarah is killed, nor the apartment of our Sarah.
Answer: Gonna be totally honest... that might just be nothing more than a simple continuity error. They accidentally made a phonebook prop that didn't match up with the locations where they shot, and assumed most people wouldn't notice or care. (And to be even more honest, I never noticed it until I saw this question today.)
Answer: My two cents: The T-800 Terminator does indeed, rip out the page of a phonebook for the address, but remember, he was looking for any and all Sarah Connors, not a specific address. He did not know which Sarah would give birth to John Connor, so by process of elimination he began terminating any woman with the name Sarah Connor. He did plug the first Sarah Connor (a housewife), then went to kill the other Sarah Connors in the phone book.
I already gave that answer, but apparently that's not what the question is asking.
Answer: Both the T-800 and Kyle look up Sarah's address in the phonebook and it's Kyle who rips out a page. Neither uses a police computer; that's the T-1000 in Terminator 2.
But that doesn't answer the question (and it's already been mentioned) since the information in the phonebook appears wrong.
Answer: Kyle we are shown uses a police computer to find the addresses. The T800 just uses the phonebook as you mentioned. He rips the page out and takes it with him.
Except 2 of the addresses in the phone book don't match. So how does the Terminator find them using the phonebook?
The Terminator is just blindly killing everyone in the phone book whose name is Sarah Connor (apparently a common name). Process of elimination. So, the day he arrives, unrelated women named Sarah Connor start dropping like flies, and the police believe it's the work of a serial killer. Our heroine Sarah Connor barely escapes this sweeping extermination by sheer luck and Kyle's intervention.
You just described the plot. Were you trying to answer the question? Because the question still stands. (As it is, it's either a mistake or plot hole in the film).
Perhaps I'm not getting the question. What is meant by "none of the addresses in the phone books match up"? Match up to what, the murder scene addresses? I wasn't aware that the murder scene addresses were prominently displayed.
Exactly. The addresses seen don't match. Specifically the first Sarah Connor's house number is "14239", but in the phonebook it is listed as "1823." And the real Sarah Connor lives in an apartment but the phonebook doesn't list an apartment number.
Perhaps though this all doesn't matter because phone books can quickly become outdated, the phone book he found could be over a year old. Someone moves but can still be listed in the phone book with their old address. He could have gone to the addresses but found someone else living there and then asked where the previous owner might be, and he was told (or he forced them). This might be how he found all the Sarah Connors.
Are any of the Sarah's listed as living at 1823? I've not got access to the film right now to check.
The first is listed as "1823." The second is "2816." The 3rd is "309." Although after reviewing the scene and thinking about it, for "309" (which is supposedly our Sarah J Connor), the full address isn't actually seen and the apartment number could have been listed.
Reese never uses a police computer; that's the T-1000 in Terminator 2. He rips out the page from the phonebook. The T800 also uses the phonebook but is never shown ripping out a page.
20th Sep 2021
Field of Dreams (1989)
Question: Maybe someone with agricultural expertise can answer this. Ray's entire cornfield is large and obviously worth a lot of money. How much would the small section of corn that he plowed under for the baseball field have been worth in comparison to the rest of the crop once sold?
Chosen answer: In modern times (say, over the last 10 years) corn crops yield about $240 in profit per acre. In the mid-to-late 1980s (when this movie was made) the profit yield was far less, maybe only $150 or less profit per acre. Today, most farms produce about 1100 acres of corn per season; but, back then, most farms produced around 600 acres per season. Of course, these are all just average figures. So, let's say Ray had an average Iowa farm of 600 cultivated acres in 1989, expecting to profit $150 per acre. Optimistically, Ray would profit about $90,000 on his total crop. Meanwhile, the acreage of a large baseball field (with 90-foot baselines) is only about 5 acres. Which means Ray plowed under only about $750 worth of his crop profits to open up land area for the baseball field. It doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice at all, in terms of corn. Ray could still potentially profit $89,250 on his remaining crop (assuming he had the farm hands and heavy equipment to harvest it).
Thanks! The plot seemed a bit far-fetched by implying that he would go completely bankrupt because he sacrificed five acres to build a baseball field. And it appeared that not all of those five acres near the house were previously being used for growing corn. Factoring in the other incidental building costs would be a different consideration, however.
Yeah, the 5 acres of corn was not a bank-breaker. My impression was that Ray probably cut down the corn himself at no great loss; but he then mortgaged his farm to have that one small piece of the cornfield leveled and professionally developed with ballpark-quality turf, baselines, stadium lighting and fencing, et cetera, not to mention the bleachers and professional-grade field equipment...all of which would total, what, a half-million bucks (or more) in the 1980s? Ray's brother-in-law rightly thought it was an insane risk that would result in bank foreclosure.
I just watched it again. It's mentioned they paid for building the field using all their savings, so presumably nothing more is owed. Another year passes and there is another crop of corn to be harvested, but the bank is threatening to foreclose.
Maybe it's a plot hole or a deleted scene; because, if the bank was threatening foreclosure, then a mortgage of some kind existed somewhere.
He did spend a lot to build the field, and those profit margin numbers are best-case, no?
Yeah, all the figures I provided were just averages for the year 1989; but the figures do demonstrate that cutting down 5 acres of corn didn't significantly impact Ray's profit on the whole crop. It wasn't cutting down the corn that cost him money (as the original question inquired); rather, it was developing the cleared 5 acres into a level, professional-standard baseball field that cost him a ton of money.
13th Sep 2003
Hollow Man (2000)
Corrected entry: Gorillas are almost exclusively herbivores. They have been observed eating small insects and grubs but nothing larger. So why does Isabelle eat a rat at the beginning of the film? The serum may have turned her into a crazed killer, as it does with Sebastian, but it hasn't changed the structure of her teeth and palate, biochemistry of her digestive system and so on, all of which would be required. She might kill or torture the rat, but she'd never eat it.
Correction: This entry is wrong. Gorillas can, and do eat meat, so the actions of the gorilla are believable. From feedingnature.com: "Gorillas will sometimes eat meat. They can catch small animals such as mice, rats, or birds and will eat these animals if they lack protein in their diet. The silverback gorilla has been known to eat meat and might even attack and eat other primates." Even if you dispute this fact, most people would believe that a gorilla is certainly capable of eating a rat.
Correction: Gorillas do sometimes eat meat, especially small animals. Also, Isabelle may not be getting fed the right foods resorting to her eating a rat. Humans will resort to drinking their own urine without access to water for a period of time, it's not far fetched that a gorilla will eat something that will be harmful to its body in a similar circumstance.
Gorillas do NOT eat rats. Inventing Deus Ex Machina explanations for a factual error (Isabelle was underfed so she was desperate for food!) does not invalidate the error. The posting needs a little more detail but is absolutely correct.
Wild gorillas have been documented (on camera) feeding on freshly-killed monkeys. Like chimpanzees and humans, gorillas are omnivores and are perfectly capable of eating and digesting raw meat.
I think speculation about her eating it because she's not fed a proper diet isn't valid. But it's plausible the serum made her vicious where she ate the rat. To say her teeth and digestive system are the reason why she wouldn't/couldn't eat the rat isn't valid either. My dog once ate my sock despite not having the teeth or digestive system required to eat socks.
To add, it was noted that the gorilla's mind has been affected by being invisible for so long causing her to be more aggressive. Especially when she bit Matt's hand.
But she didn't eat it regardless so everyone is making the same mistake (she bit it, perhaps from the rage side effect?).
Nonsense. She picks up the rat, bites it in half, and swallows it. If she spat it out, we'd see it. As we see later in the film, anything ingested by an invisible creature instantly becomes invisible, so why don't we see a bloodied half rat splatter on the cage floor? Because Isabelle chewed it up and swallowed it.
4th Aug 2020
Star Trek (1966)
Question: Did actor Robert Lansing ever make any comments on Star Trek in general or "Assignment: Earth" (TOS S2E26) in particular? His co-star in this episode/pilot, Teri Garr, had a sour, cynical and dismissive opinion of "Assignment: Earth" and Star Trek fandom (Starlog #173). But what was Robert Lansing's feeling about his experience on Star Trek? Did he like it, hate it, was he excited about the prospect of entering into the new "Gary Seven" series; or, like Teri Garr, was Lansing glad to put it behind him? I've never seen or heard anything about Lansing's personal views on the show.
Answer: Robert Lansing said, in an interview, he was reluctant to a television series. He was a Broadway actor and was snobbish about T.V. Especially science fiction shows, which were considered cheesy kiddie programs. But Gene was a friend of his and wrote the part specifically for him. So he did it and admitted to having fun with it.
Thank you, I've always wondered about that. Is there a link to the Robert Lansing interview? I'd be very interested to read it or view it (if it's a video).
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."
8th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Revealing mistake: Steve Trevor approaches and stands before an oval, wall-mounted mirror, incredulously looking at himself and seeing a stranger's face in close-up. Steve finally smiles approvingly, turns to Diana Prince and says, "He's got it! Y'know, I like him!" The camera immediately cuts to two wide shots from behind Steve standing directly in front of the mirror (only a couple of feet away from it), but there is no reflection of Steve in the mirror at all. This error reveals that the "mirror" is actually a hole in the wall (a low-budget practical effect used in films of decades past for such mirror illusions). They probably filmed a lot more footage of Steve mugging in front of the "mirror" but edited it out, because this old-school effect is notoriously difficult to get exactly right. (00:49:50 - 00:50:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They don't use this trick for the scene, the actor playing "the other guy" is standing in front of the mirror himself when you see him in the reflection, since he has black hair and Chris Pine does not. And Chris Pine can only be seen without the mirror. Later in the wide shots the angle of the mirror simply doesn't show Chris Pine's reflection. Only a tiny second at the start of the wide shot can you see it is actually a real mirror, when you see a piece of Chris Pine's hair in it.
As I said, they probably filmed a lot more footage of Steve mugging in front of the "mirror" but edited it out. When Steve approaches the "mirror" in close-up, you can see that there are two distinct actors (which is the whole purpose of the scene): Chris Pine's hair is a distinctly different color and texture, and the actor in the "reflection" is taller. Plus, their subtle body and head movements are not perfectly synchronized, as would be the case in a true mirror-image. It's the old hole-in-the-wall trick.
But it is a real mirror, as it reflects his hair. So it's not a hole in the wall anyway. The back of the head you see when seeing "the other guy" in the mirror is that same guy's head, not Chris Pine's. No need to use that trick.
No, the hair color and texture of the back-of-the-head shot are distinctly different from the guy in the reflection. The whole purpose of the shot is that Chris Pine in the foreground IS NOT the guy in the reflection in the background. The hair color and texture is different, and the guy in the reflection is taller; plus, the body and head movements are not synchronized. Go back and watch the scene (if you can stand watching the movie again).
28th Sep 2020
The Burbs (1989)
Question: What did Bruce Dern say when he was up on the roof staking out the neighbours?
Answer: I watched the YouTube clip. The closed captions interpret it as, "Hey, Ricky, get this limo out of your yard." Listening to it, however, it sounds like he says, "lame-o" (as in a lame person) rather than "limo."
The closed-caption setting on YouTube is voice-activated, and it often displays typos and "approximate" words when it doesn't recognize the audio output (especially slang terms). In that scene, Rumsfield yells, "Hey, Ricky, get this lame-o out of your yard!" In response, Ricky puts his arm around his friend's shoulders and laughs, "Get out of my yard, Lame-o!"
14th Aug 2020
Justice League (2017)
Factual error: The existing Justice League members realise that they cannot battle Steppenwolf without Superman, so they procure the last Motherbox to resurrect Superman from death. Unfortunately, the crippled Kryptonian spacecraft lacks sufficient power to activate the Motherbox. The Flash suggests that, given enough distance to accelerate, he can use his super speed to generate an enormous static electrical charge to activate the Motherbox. The problem with this scenario is that, although the Flash may generate a huge static electrical field at super speed, he is constantly discharging that static electricity, as we see every single time he exerts his power. As Flash races toward the Motherbox, gigantic arcs of electricity (easily hundreds of thousands of volts) pour off him, grounding to the spacecraft's bulkheads, thus neutralizing the static charge. Meaning that The Flash is not accumulating energy, he is discharging energy with every step; so, by the time he arrives at the Motherbox, he should have no more accumulated static electrical energy than if he started ten feet away from it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Under known physics, you are correct, however, The Flash can tap into the speed force, something that transcends known physics, which therefore makes his charging of the motherbox possible.
It doesn't matter what he is "tapping into" if he is still grounding-out to the ship's bulkheads and is discharging electricity the whole time.
Also the bulkheads are made of Kryptonian technology, being alien in nature maybe the discharged energy reacts differently and perhaps is reflected back into the Flash at a rate so fast that is imperceptible to the human eye. Like Bruce said the mother box is science beyond anything imaginable so we have to keep our mind open to possibilities regarding its properties.
Sorry but you are incorrect. According to you Barry shouldn't be able to run at all at high speed because physics. The speed force may as well be magic, as it defies physics in multiple ways i.e friction, gaining momentum the requirement for an equal opposite force to come to a rapid stop etc. Nevermind that it's canonical that they can generate and hurl lightning bolts.
Suggested correction: He said that he can "conduct a significant electrical current." At the moment he touches the cube, you can see the bolts sucking back into him and flowing into the cube. Also..."speed force."
6th Jul 2014
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Question: At the beginning, Lyle refers to the song Camptown races as "The Camptown lady"? Is this simply cause he's stupid, or is there any other reason?
Chosen answer: The opening line of the song refers to the Camptown Ladies and the phrase "Camptown Races" never appears anywhere in the lyrics. If nobody told him otherwise, Lyle may simply have assumed that some variation on "Camptown Ladies" was the actual title.
The actual title of the song was "Gwine to Run All Night, or De Camptown Races," written by American lyricist Stephen Foster and first published in 1850. Over many years on the minstrel show circuit, the title was shortened to "Camptown Races" and was sometimes erroneously called "Camptown Ladies." While the phrase "Camptown Races" doesn't appear in the lyrics, the phrase "Camptown Racetrack" does appear in the second line: "Camptown ladies sing dis song, doo-dah, doo-dah, Camptown Racetrack five miles long, oh-de-doo-dah-day." The song refers to Camptown, Pennsylvania, a real town with a popular horserace in the mid-1800s.
8th Apr 2020
Common mistakes
Factual error: In almost every movie from the introduction of sound on to present day, lightning and thunder happen simultaneously, while in reality there's always a delay between the former and the latter.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Hardly always, if the lightning hits right in front of you you hear the thunder immediately. I'd say from about 100 meters you perceive it as instantly, as it's only 0.3 seconds between flash and thunder.
This is a mistake about in almost all movies, not in all thunderstorms. The common mistake in the movies is when lightning isn't hitting 100m away from the character, but the sound is still instantaneous.
I assume it's about thunderstorms in movies. Name an example.
Instant thunder (even at a considerable distance of miles from the lightning or explosion source) is, indeed, a common and probably deliberate error in most films. The reasoning for it is simple: a prolonged and realistic delay between lightning and thunder could change a 1-second shot into a 6-second shot, for example, compromising the director's intended pace and mood for the scene. Steven Spielberg films have utilized both instant and delayed thunder. In "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," for example, when the UFOs zoom out into the distant background (certainly miles away) in a wide landscape shot, they produce a lightning effect in the clouds that is simultaneously heard as thunder. But in "Poltergeist" (a Spielberg film directed by Tobe Hooper), there is a very deliberate scene of characters realistically counting the seconds between distant lightning and resulting thunder. Choosing to obey physics or not is a matter of the director's artistic license.
I posted this while I was watching Death in Paradise, episode 7 of the third season, but really, you have never seen in pretty much any horror or cheap slasher movie whenever there's a storm, the flash of a lightning coming at the *same* time as a thunder jumpscare sound? It's vastly spoofed, even, when some ugly/creepy/terrifying character makes its appearance. One example randomly picked? Dracula by Coppola, in the first 10 minutes, carriage, lightning in the distance, not even a split second after, rumble. In RL it would reach you a couple seconds later. But really, it's such a movie archetype, I am sure you can find it in any Dracula movie.
The Dracula example doesn't really show how far away the lightning is, it could right above them. It's fake as hell, I agree with that, but the fact there is lightning and thunder at the same time without actually seeing the distance is not a mistake to me. It's also highly unnatural lightning as it only happens twice and then nothing, it's not even raining. It's obviously meant to be caused by the evil surrounding the place. The idea is there is constant lightning right on top of them.
There's a scene in Judge Dredd where every few seconds, there is a flash of lightning instantly accompanied by the sound of thunder. It happens frequently in Sleepy Hollow as well.
I know the scenes you are referring to. In both those instances you have no idea about the distance of this lightning. It could be (and probably is) right on top of them. You can hear that from the typical high sharpness of the sound, only heard when the flash is very close. Thunderclouds are never very high in the air so even the rumbling within the cloud itself can be heard, sometimes you don't even see lightning when it rumbles (yet there is). It's a bit far fetched but you could hear a rumbling or the thunder from a previous flash and mistake it for the flash you see at the same time. Can happen when there are continuous flashes.
16th Aug 2018
Constantine (2005)
Question: After Gabriel becomes human and John punched her in the face and walked off, why does Gabriel just climb back into the pool?
Answer: Well, far be it from us to second-guess the motives of angels; however, considering that Lucifer had just burned Gabriel's wings down to stumps a few moments earlier (and the angel was now feeling intense mortal pain), Gabriel retreated into the water to soothe the burns.
Lucifer didn't take her wings. God did. He cast her out for trying to bring the son to earth.
No, God removed Gabriel's powers, leaving Gabriel unprotected, and it was Lucifer who burned away Gabriel's wings.
That's right. Lucifer said "looks like someone doesn't have your back anymore". God took Gabriel's wings.
18th Feb 2020
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Factual error: It is long-established in Star Trek canon that onboard diagnostics can detect any animate intruders on Federation vessels. Any living thing that exists upon a Federation vessel can be identified, and its location specifically noted on Federation property. How is it, then, that there are rats aboard the Regula I space station (as observed by Doctor McCoy) that haven't been eradicated?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is not established that Regula 1 has the same internal sensors that a starship has.
It is definitely established, however, that the Regula 1 space station is conducting the most highly-classified technological research and development in the entire Federation: The Genesis Project, which entailed re-engineering whole worlds to create new ecosystems where no life existed before. If anything, Regula 1 should be equipped with even more sensitive and discriminating biological sensors than any starship in the Federation, for the express purpose of preventing biological contamination of their experiments. So, Regula 1 must have necessarily possessed the most sophisticated biological sensors available. As Dr. Carol Marcus emphasized, the Genesis Project couldn't risk contamination by so much as a microbe, nevermind foot-long rats creeping around the space station.
None of the scanning shown in the film was done by the Regula 1 station. The Reliant is what scanned the planet where Khan was found. Even if Regula 1 did have highly advanced sensors there is nothing to suggest anyone has the time or need to regularly scan for pests on the station itself. The presence of a pest in the Genesis cave itself would have been an error, but not on the station. A pest on the station has no bearing on the Genesis project itself. There are too many assumptions for this to be considered a movie mistake.
The rat was not shown in the Genesis Cave, it was shown aboard the Regula space station, where the Genesis Device itself was constructed before it was beamed inside the planetoid for a test run. The point you're missing is that the space station had rats crawling around inside, but a rat infestation wouldn't be tolerated at an ultra-top-secret research and development facility for a project that was highly sensitive to biological contamination.
Regulus One was a scientific research laboratory, the rats seen roaming the passageways were lab rats that had escaped in the earlier confusion. Genesis was their current project, but I'm certain there were many other experiments going on. Bear in mind, Carol Marcus retorted that "they waited until everyone was on leave to do this." They only had a skeleton crew aboard at the time Khan boarded the station and killed those still present who were not transporting equipment to the cavern.
Suggested correction: It was most likely a lab rat that was inadvertently freed when Khan and his followers ransacked the station. The sensors probably pick it up just fine, everyone on the station is just too busy being dead to do anything about the stray rat scurrying about.
It's the 24th Century. After all the "animal cruelty" activism of the 20th and 21st Centuries, I very seriously doubt they are still experimenting on lab rats in the 24th Century. That practice would be deemed medieval, at best, and barbaric, at worst.
Suggested correction: When was this established? There are a number of episodes of the original series where the plot depends on them not being able to detect intruders. "Court Martial" for example.
"Court Martial" is probably the worst example you could use for your argument. In that episode, the vengeful Lieutenant Commander Benjamin Finney repeatedly sabotaged the Enterprise main computer (changing ship's chronological data records in order to fake his own "death" and frame Captain Kirk for a murder that never happened). Finney also sabotaged the computer and caused the Enterprise to fall out of orbit. Indeed, Spock discovered that the ship's computer was malfunctioning due to sabotage. So, Finney was more than capable of sabotaging the ship's bio-scanners, as well, to conceal himself from a whole-ship scan. In fact, they had to resort to a very sensitive audio-scan of the Enterprise, selectively eliminating the audible heartbeats of every known person aboard the ship. When all known heartbeats were eliminated, just one unknown heartbeat remained, and its owner couldn't be identified. Therefore, Finney had certainly tampered with the bio-scanner to conceal his whereabouts. It's very doubtful, however, that foot-long rats hacked the bio-scanners aboard the Regula research station to conceal their whereabouts.
Every time the Enterprise computer system reported an "intruder alert," and every time they asked the computer for the location of specific individuals and lifeforms anywhere aboard the ship. This was all well-established in the Original Series.
It's a big leap to go from that to they can detect any living being. It is explicitly established that under many circumstances they can't even detect a full grown man if they are in hiding. This is the whole basis of the plot of "Court Martial." Even as late as The Next Generation it is established that it is difficult to find someone if they're not wearing their communicator badge.
Yet they can detect single-celled organisms on a planet's surface from thousands of miles away. The technology certainly exists in the Star Trek universe, and especially for the highly-classified Genesis Experiment. In "The Wrath of Khan," Dr. Carol Marcus stipulates that the Genesis Experiment cannot be contaminated by so much as a microbe, and complete sterility is a condition for selecting a test planet. Yet they have foot-long rats scurrying around the Genesis research facility? That is a plot hole, a continuity problem and a factual error all rolled into one.
Reliant scanned the planet to search for any life forms. That scan was inaccurate and it read Khan's entire group (and presumably the Ceti eels) as non-specific, potential life matter. Reliant's crew speculates that it could just be some speck of matter and they are completely shocked to find multiple living humans there. If they were using these highly advanced sensors you claim they were using they would not have been surprised by the presence of humans at all. And even if they could, there is nothing to suggest they should also use those sensors for pest control on their space station.
Suggested correction: Obviously the first thing the rats did was chew through the cables to the lifeform scanners.
Which would set off alarms like crazy aboard the station because preventing biological contamination of the Genesis Experiment was a No.1 priority for Dr. Carol Marcus. Undoubtedly, the station was bristling with redundant bio-scanners.
All of which had been also chewed through! No, you make a good point.
Suggested correction: Someone on the Reliant had a pet rat and one of Khan's henchmen brought it aboard Regula I to torment the lab techs. (Yes, this sounds silly, but the point is that strange and unlikely things actually happen quite often and it's exactly what makes stories interesting. As long as an event can be rationalized, unlikelihood alone isn't enough to qualify as a mistake. If it really bothers you, you might get more mileage putting it under "stupidity" since it's obviously just a lazy horror cliche).
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: It was a small, polished stone (probably a raw diamond) that Tarzan subsequently kept as a keepsake of his ape mother. You see him looking at it in a box at the beginning of the film, also.
Charles Austin Miller
Diamonds are not red, orange, and cream in color. To me, it looks like Carnelian.
Diamonds are found in a whole spectrum of colors from red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, pink, steel gray, brown, white and black.
Charles Austin Miller