Charles Austin Miller

20th Mar 2018

Justice League (2017)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: It disintegrates most of his clothes. What he's left with are the pants he was buried in.

So, the gigantic blast vaporized his shirt, tie, jacket, shoes and even socks, but didn't affect his pants at all? Seems unlikely.

Charles Austin Miller

Well although I agree you gotta know that the obvious reason for this is that they didn't want them fighting a naked Superman. He is still wearing the same pants as he was buried in though, not suddenly wearing different pants. On the other hand it would have been more logical for Superman to be naked for a second or so, then in the next scene wearing something which he got from anywhere in the city in a split second. Unfortunately for the movie makers they show him wearing them as he shoots up from the building, and it's the same pants so the plausibility gets quite lost. It's not a continuity mistake though.

lionhead

Whether it's plausible or not is debatable, but the original mistake claimed his pants changed. The correction is that they're the same pants he was buried in.

Suggested correction: It's never verified that his clothes and shoes were "disintegrated." He could have removed them because they were likely tattered from blasting through the roof.

DetectiveGadget85

True, but it's semantics? Vaporized, tattered, sliced into cubes or deep fried, the crux is still that his magic pants are intact and the rest isn't. I mean, it's pretty obvious like lionhead said in his comment, why it happened; modesty reasons. Some (not me!) might consider pedantic or too obvious to point out such an event that falls generally under the suspension of disbelief category, however it's a fact.

Sammo

20th Mar 2018

Justice League (2017)

Question: What is the story behind the strange makeup blunders in Justice League? Early in the film, both Henry Cavill's and Ben Affleck's facial features seem oddly, almost creepily unrecognizable (in the smartphone sequence of Superman and in the private jet sequence with Bruce Wayne and Alfred). Also, Bruce Wayne's hair color seems to randomly change throughout the movie. As I understand it, between the directing upheaval and editing, many old scenes were deleted and new scenes added, requiring a lot of re-shooting. Is that the reason for the sloppy makeup continuity?

Charles Austin Miller

Answer: I don't know about the Ben Affleck portion of your question, but when the film was going back for reshoots, Henry Cavill had grown a mustache for his upcoming role in "Mission: Impossible Fallout" which he was contractually obligated to keep. The special effects crew had no choice but to digitally erase his mustache in post-production, which is why his mouth area looks so odd in some scenes (if you have seen the trailer for "Deadpool 2," Deadpool makes reference to this when he notes that the special effects for Cable's metal arm are not finished, and remarks that it's not like they are trying to remove a mustache). Interestingly, a person on YouTube posted a video of them removing Henry Cavill's mustache using a $500 computer, and it looks remarkably better than what this film did with a $300 million budget.

Phaneron

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

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

20th Feb 2018

High Anxiety (1977)

Deliberate mistake: After the hotel murder, Brophy makes a series of photographic enlargements to prove Dr. Thorndyke's innocence. However, instead of holding his magnifying glass directly in front of his face as he examines the photos, Brophy angles the magnifying glass far to his right so the movie audience can see the magnifying glass details, but he can't possibly see anything.

Charles Austin Miller

Continuity mistake: When the giant bronze statue, Talos, attacks the Argo, the crew flees across the beach and up the ship's boarding ramp, and one sailor chops through a mooring line so the Argo can escape. But, in subsequent shots as the Argo departs, no chopped-off mooring line remains on the wide-open beach, and there's nothing to which they could tie a mooring line, anyway.

Charles Austin Miller

Trivia: Although released to theatres in 1966, this beautifully-shot film was actually the pilot for an unrealised television series entitled "House of Wax" (which was never picked up by the networks). Despite its title, "Chamber of Horrors" was not particularly scary, much less horrifying; in fact, it was more like a 19th Century crime-detective drama. After the TV pilot was rejected, Warner Brothers opted for a theatrical release, even though the film was shot in television screen format rather than wide screen format. Attempting to sensationalize "Chamber of Horrors" for the big screen, Warner Brothers added the preposterous "Fear Flasher and Horror Horn" gimmick to warn audiences of imminent violence and gore...except that there was no gore and practically no onscreen violence.

Charles Austin Miller

Factual error: This film begins with a foreboding quote attributed to Edgar Allen Poe: "Sleep. Those little slices of death. How I loathe them." Problem is, Poe never wrote any such thing (and neither did Henry Wadsworth Longfellow), despite decades of misquotes and misattributions across the Internet. So, where did the quote actually originate? The answer is Walter Reisch, lead screenwriter on the 1959 film "Journey to the Center of the Earth." In Reisch's screenplay, the antagonist Count Arne Saknussemm is urged to get some rest, to which he memorably replies, "I don't sleep. I hate those little slices of death."

Charles Austin Miller

Trivia: A naggingly familiar quote that has been attributed on the Internet to various authors (ranging from Edgar Allen Poe to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow) is "Sleep. Those little slices of death. How I loathe them." Problem is, Poe never wrote any such thing, and neither did Longfellow. The 1987 horror film "Nightmare on Elm Street III" seems to be the genesis of the misquote, which it incorrectly attributes to Poe. So, where did the actual quote originate? The answer is Walter Reisch, lead screenwriter on the 1959 film "Journey to the Center of the Earth." In the screenplay, the antagonist Count Arne Saknussemm is urged to get some rest, to which he memorably replies, "I don't sleep. I hate those little slices of death."

Charles Austin Miller

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.

Charles Austin Miller

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.

raywest

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?

Charles Austin Miller

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.

raywest

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.

BaconIsMyBFF

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

Last Action Hero (1993)

Plot hole: It is firmly established in the last half of the film that movie characters and movie weapons do inflict damage and death in the real world. However, early in the film, a bundle of dynamite comes straight through the movie screen and explodes in the real world movie theatre. That quantity of dynamite should have gutted the theatre, easily; but, when Danny Madigan and Jack Slater cross from the movie world back into the real world, there is absolutely no damage to the theatre.

Charles Austin Miller

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.

Charles Austin Miller

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.

lionhead

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.

Charles Austin Miller

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.

Charles Austin Miller

21st Jan 2018

Chaplin (1992)

Continuity mistake: Near the end, when the elderly Chaplin and his biographer are seated on the terrace, chatting about madness, Chaplin's hands are clasped high up on his chest, clutching the shawl around his shoulders. In several subsequent shots, his hands are relaxed in his lap, then clasped again high on his chest, again and again, from shot to shot.

Charles Austin Miller

16th Jan 2018

Chaplin (1992)

Trivia: Anthony Hopkins played George Hayden, Charlie Chaplin's biographer (throughout the film's many flashbacks). However, biographer George Hayden was a completely fictional character created only for this movie. In real life, Charlie Chaplin alone wrote his autobiography.

Charles Austin Miller

Question: When the Enterprise recovers Chekov and Captain Terrell, they just accept Chekov's and Terrell's false explanation, even though McCoy is standing right there with a medical tricorder. Why didn't McCoy's medical tricorder pick up the Ceti eels lodged in the brains of Chekov and Captain Terrell?

Charles Austin Miller

Answer: It's unknown. The tricorder may not have been programmed at the moment to detect any parasites.

raywest

Answer: The eels bond with the host brain and are virtually undetectable until the host dies or they are found for some reason.

Other mistake: At the beginning, as Eggsy is pursued through city streets by the Golden Circle henchmen, the three pursuit vehicles are all firing rooftop mini-guns at Eggsy, in spite of the fact that they are all in single-file, one vehicle behind another. The Golden Circle vehicles would have been riddled with their own gunfire.

Charles Austin Miller

Trivia: When the animated series was being voice-cast, the only original actors chosen were William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelly, James Doohan and Majel Barrett (Gene Roddenberry's wife). James Doohan was going to double as Chief Engineer Scott and as Lieutenant Sulu, as well as any needed additional male voices; Majel Barrett was going to perform several female voices including the Ship's Computer and Communications Officer Uhura. When Leonard Nimoy (Spock) learned about the casting choices, he threatened to quit the animated series unless original series actors George Takei and Nichelle Nichols were hired to play Sulu and Uhura. Nimoy's opinion carried a lot of weight, so Takei and Nichols were immediately hired.

Charles Austin Miller

The Practical Joker - S2-E3

Trivia: The animated series featured the first appearance of the Holodeck (called the Rec Room) in this episode only. Gene Roddenberry wanted to use the Rec Room/Holodeck idea in the original live action series of the 1960s, but found that budgetary constraints were prohibitive at that time. The Rec Room finally appeared once in the animated series, in this episode, in 1973. It wouldn't be seen again until Star Trek: The Next Generation, in 1987, some 14 years later.

Charles Austin Miller

Question: Isn't this film blatantly derivative of Guillermo del Toro's earlier films, "HellBoy" and "HellBoy: The Golden Army"? It seems to me that the Asset in "The Shape of Water" is a direct knock-off Abe Sapien from the Hellboy films. The amphibious Asset is held at a top secret facility, as was Abe Sapien; the Asset is fed hard-boiled eggs, as was Abe Sapien; the Asset develops a love interest and romantic relationship with a female air-breather, as did Abe Sapien. To top it off, del Toro called in contortionist-actor Doug Jones to play the Asset in "The Shape of Water" (Doug Jones also played Abe Sapien in the HellBoy films). "Shape of Water" could almost be a spin-off the old HellBoy films, given Guillermo del Toro's involvement and recycling of familiar themes.

Charles Austin Miller

Answer: There are a lot of Hellboy fans who speculate this is an origin story of Abe, or at the very least the Asset is the same species, but del Torro has denied it. Abe is a copyrighted character that del Torro's Hellboy was based on, and he doesn't own the copyright. In addition, prior to The Shape of Water, del Torro was in talks with Universal about remaking "The Creature from the Black Lagoon", only making the movie center on the creature's (Gill-Man) perspective and getting together with Kay (the female lead). Del Torro has stated that the Amphibious Man is based on Gill-Man and this film is what he had pitched to Universal, but was turned down by them. Although, a creature developing a love interest in a human female isn't unique, nor is capturing a creature to study (both happen to Gill-Man, Abe, and Amphibious Man). But the fact that Doug Jones plays both Abe and the Amphibious Man only seems to strengthen theories of some connection to Hellboy, but at this point we only have del Torro's word that it's not and why he choose the creature to be so similar at this point would only be a guess.

Bishop73

Continuity mistake: Near the beginning of the film, Bill Murray takes a seat front-row-center in court. Moments later, he's doing push-ups in the corridor. A few moments later, he's back in the same seat front-row-center in the courtroom.

Charles Austin Miller

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.