Question: At the very end of the film, Tony Stark informs Peter Parker that he is a now a member of the Avengers and reveals his new Spidey suit. Peter moves toward the camera, with Tony Stark plainly visible on the right side of the screen and Happy Hogan far in the background (all three are in this shot), as we hear a male voice in the foreground enthusiastically say, "Yeah! Give that a look!" Except that Tony Stark didn't say it, Peter Parker didn't say it, and Happy Hogan was much too far away to have said it. The dubbed voice obviously does not belong to Tom Holland, Robert Downey Jr or Jon Favreau at all. So who said it?
Charles Austin Miller
1st Mar 2018
Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
28th May 2017
Duel (1971)
Question: I know it's never answered in the film but is it explained in the book just why the truck driver takes such a dislike to David Mann - he behaves this way after just a couple of overtakes?
Chosen answer: That is never answered for the film, and not knowing adds to the mystery and intrigue. No mentally stable person would target someone just because they overtook their vehicle on the road. It appears that Mann happened to cross paths with a psychopath. Steven Spielberg has commented that the multiple out-of-state license plates attached to the truck's front bumper may be "trophies" that indicate that the trucker is a serial killer who has run down other drivers. This could be a deadly game to the truck driver.
I just wonder why the driver's door on the big rig was open while it took a dive over the mountain.
Perhaps a hint that the truck driver escaped. You notice that the truck doesn't explode on impact, although the studio insisted it must; Spielberg fought the studio over the inclusion of a cliched fiery finale, as he wanted the crash to convey an ambiguous ending, suggesting that the driver might not have died. Spielberg even explained that the red liquid seen in the truck cab was not blood, but was some sort of automotive fluid. This all lent to the mystery of what actually happened to the driver, whose body we never see.
The stuntman driving the truck had to jump out of the truck right before it went over the edge, and due to equipment issues barely made it out, without having time to shut the door.
24th Aug 2012
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Question: Even though it's meant as a comedic moment, I've never really understood why Kirk would be so nervous about Saavik piloting the ship out of space dock. She's not actually flying the ship, so it's not like she's going to crash it into the wall or something. Plus, Sulu is an experienced pilot, so even if she said something stupid like "Warp speed!", he's unlikely to follow the order. Just something odd that I have always wondered about.
Chosen answer: He's nervous because she's a trainee and had never done this maneuver before. Even if Sulu is there, she could still possibly make one small error that he would be unable to react to in time. As you point out, the scene is meant to be comedic, and it's being a little over-played strictly for that.
Again though, she is not actually piloting the ship, only giving orders.
Even though Sulu is an experienced pilot, taking the ship out of space dock under power is still prohibited for a reason. If something were to go wrong and a quick decision had to be made, Savick would be the one giving orders to correct the problem. That's what makes Kirk nervous, not the piloting skill involved but the decision making required in an emergency.
Answer: Normally a ship is piloted out of spacedock using thrusters (see ST:TMP). Saavik ordered impulse power.
Answer: Saavik destroyed a simulated Enterprise during her Kobayashi Maru test, with Admiral Kirk chiding her afterwards. When Spock invites Saavik to take the real Enterprise out of space dock, Kirk is obviously nervous because he thinks Saavik is unready for command, as she destroyed the Enterprise earlier.
To my original point though, she is not actually touching any controls, only giving orders. The Enterprise was destroyed in the simulation during a Klingon attack, which is very different than guiding a ship out of spacedock. Not to mention the fact that the simulation is designed to make the cadet fail.
The whole scene is about Spock taking a dig at Kirk's ego. Being the only cadet in Starfleet history to ever actually beat the Kobayashi Maru test (albeit by trickery), Kirk has an inflated standard for what constitutes "readiness for command," and it shows in his reaction. Knowing full well that it will raise Kirk's hackles, Spock deliberately invites Saavik to handle the simple space dock maneuver. McCoy also knows that Kirk will over-react, which is why he offers Kirk a tranquilizer.
24th Jan 2018
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Question: After the Reliant ambushes the Enterprise, Kirk tricks Khan and hammers the Reliant into retreat. As Kirk turns to assess damage to the Enterprise, Scotty inexplicably appears on the bridge, carrying the charred body of Midshipman Peter Preston. Why on earth would Scotty bring the dying Preston to the bridge, rather than to SickBay with all the other injured? He had to deliberately bypass SickBay just to make an unnecessary appearance on the bridge.
Answer: At the time of the attack, most of Scotty's crew were attempting to flee a coolant leak caused by the damage. Cadet Preston (Scotty's nephew) remained at his post in the confusion, and was the reason the Enterprise was able to maintain minimal power with the energizers knocked out. Although he was wounded from the assault while rescuing another crew member, the coolant leak is what led to his ultimate demise, as the coolant was highly toxic. When Scotty brought him to the Bridge, he was himself quite disorientated from the events and was also devastated by his nephew's condition. Agreed it makes little to no sense, but Scotty didn't know what he was doing. His nephew was going to die, regardless of where he took him to. Going to sickbay would not have prevented it at this point. It seems like it was used as a mood breaker for the scene, crews celebrating their escape from death only to be confronted by it again in another form.
Answer: I believe Preston was already dead at that point. An earlier scene was edited out of the film that explained Preston was Scotty's nephew (his sister's son), and which may account for Scotty's rather odd reaction of first bringing him to the bridge.
Yet Preston is shown alive (still dying) in the SickBay moments later. Preston shares last words with Captain Kirk before he actually dies. So, this is a case of bad editing?
What was edited out of the film was an earlier explanation that Preston was Scotty's nephew-this was way before the Enterprise was attacked.
These scenes, which include several of Preston's lines which were cut, were restored in the 2002 Director's Edition. Curiously, when the film is aired on TV they still run the original video cut which has the scenes removed. The editing is really sloppy with the scenes cut out and the scenes establishing that Preston is Scotty's nephew add another emotional layer to the film. It makes Scotty's actions make so much more sense, he's overcome with grief over his nephew and anger at Khan. With the scenes cut what Scotty does makes very little sense.
In the novelization, I believe it is explained that the ship is badly damaged enough that Scotty reached the bridge while attempting to get to sickbay because the computer glitched.
21st Jan 2018
Stargate (1994)
Factual error: When they first power-up the Stargate in the military facility (using Jackson's decryption), the thing surges to life, and electrical sparks spray out of overloaded connections all around the control room. This could only happen if there were no fuses or electrical breakers in the military's control system, which is a ridiculous notion for such advanced military technology. In real life, a powerful overload situation would instantly burn out fuses and trip breakers and the whole system would simply go dead (there would be no sparks). Showers of sparks are a common error in many science fiction and space fantasy films dating back many decades.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If there would be breakers and fuses then yes, the system would simply go dead and then they would have nothing. They intentionally let the system nearly overload because without power they wouldn't be able to finish the sequence.
No, that's not the way sophisticated (and expensive) electronic technology works. If you have sparks spraying out of electrical connectors, that means you're melting down millions and millions of dollars of hardware. No technician or electrician or even a first-year auto mechanic would intentionally design and hardwire an electrical system without fuses and/or breakers.
They're dealing with Ancient technology. It's quiet possible that such an advanced piece of technology as a Stargate could cause powerful arcs of electricity along lines separated even by tripped breakers.
Ancient technology does not override electrical physics. Modern electrical equipment is protected with fuses and breakers for a reason. If the Stargate technology overrode the parameters of the modern equipment, it would melt down the modern components being protected by the fuses and breakers. Either way, the whole system would shut down.
7th Jan 2018
From Hell (2001)
24th Nov 2017
K-Pax (2001)
Question: Despite Dr. Mark Powell's certainty that "Prot" is a delusional man named Robert Porter who lost his mind and attempted suicide years earlier, no explanation is ever given for Prot's extraordinary resistance to powerful psychiatric drugs, his superhuman vision (into the Ultraviolet range), and his knowledge of deep-space astrophysics, which not only rivals but exceeds the knowledge of Earthly astrophysicists. Prot's enigmatic abilities are tested by experts, and the experts are left scratching their heads. The probability that Prot actually is an alien entity occupying a deeply-damaged and "discarded" human body seems confirmed on many levels, above and beyond the rantings of a mere mental patient. So, why does Dr. Powell consistently reject the hard evidence before his eyes?
Answer: He rejects it for two main reasons. First, each of the items you mention have possible, even if unlikely, explanations. Some people have strange or no reaction to certain drugs (for example I have almost no response to any painkillers). People who have had their corneas replaced with artificial lens can see near ultraviolet (though nowhere near 300-400 angstroms). The sheriff described Porter as being very bright, and he was in to astronomy, so while a great stretch, not impossible he somehow formulated the information he presented. The second reason, building upon these, is Occam's razor. As a person in the sciences, Dr. Powell is driven to believe things have a reasonable explanation, even if we don't currently know what it is, and thinking Prot is just a bright and unusual human is a more reasonable belief to him than believing Prot is an alien possessing a human's body.
Just remarking, there's no comparison of painkillers and psychiatric drugs. Thorazine and Haloperidol (Haldol) are both powerful anti-psychotic drugs with numerous side effects. Prot is immune to Thorazine and Haloperidol (as well as alcohol), which is more than extraordinary, it's otherworldly.
29th Oct 2015
Halloween (1978)
Corrected entry: There's no way Annie could have locked herself in the laundry room considering the lock is on the outside of the door.
Correction: It's a figure of speech when one says 'I/you locked myself/yourself in/out'. She was alone, nobody knew that Michael was skulking around, and she got locked in the laundry room. Anyone would say they locked themselves in.
That's pure opinion, not a correction.
In this scene, you can literally see her turn the lock knob which is above the handle before she tries to get out.
Correction: It's not a figure of speech since the door magically locked itself because the wind blew it shut. She tried to open it and it wouldn't open because the lock is on the outside. Why do you think she was trying to get out the window?
The point is she didn't literally lock herself in - she was locked in. Personally I think it's a minor semantic difference - she may well just think she did something wrong that led to the door locking itself. Regardless it's a standard turn of phrase, if technically inaccurate.
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: Go back and watch the scene again. It looks like you just might be remembering it wrong. It's Tony during the tracking shot. He says "Yeah, give that a look!" in reference to the suit. He's actually not quite on camera when he says the line, hence you don't see him say it. But it's definitely Tony.
I re-watched the shot several times, Tony Stark does not visibly say anything, and the dubbed voice is not that of Robert Downey Jr.
Charles Austin Miller
I understand what you are saying. Tony isn't on screen during the line and the voice does sound different. The implication is that Tony is saying the line, without the line Tony is just standing there waiting for Peter to respond for a long time and it would be out of character for him to do so (he's an extremely talkative person). There isn't enough information available to determine whether or not Downey is actually the one who recorded the line, it could be him just recorded in post. But you are definitely correct, I listened to the scene with headphones on and there is a noticeable difference in the tone of voice for this one line and no others.
BaconIsMyBFF