Question: What ever happened to Maxi Dean and his wife after Beetlejuice hammered them up into the ceiling?
TedStixon
17th Apr 2024
Beetlejuice (1988)
17th Apr 2024
Bean (1997)
Question: Why did David get back in the shower with Mr Bean after hanging up the phone?
Answer: In the context of the movie, the "damage" has already been done, so-to-speak... he's already in the shower with Bean. And since he's also in a big rush to get to the museum, he decides to just keep showering. (In a meta, behind-the-scenes sense, it's also just funnier for him to stay in the shower rather than get out and wait for Bean.)
17th Apr 2024
The Village (2004)
Question: Ivy says some people have a colour. Do you think Noah had a colour and she knew it was him in the woods? If so, did she intentionally let him die knowing he may have killed the man she loves?
Answer: From what I recall, there's nothing in the movie to indicate that this is the case.
23rd Feb 2024
Ronin (1998)
Question: What is the most likely explanation for what was in the case?
Answer: Sorry for posting an off-topic comment, but why are so few questions and mistakes posted anymore?
In large part it's reduced traffic, sadly - I'm always running a bit of a backlog of submissions (about 200 currently), because life gets in the way, but some get auto-approved so there's often a trickle of new content regardless. Mainly though it's just that thanks to search algorithm updates the site's now getting half to a third of the traffic it was about a year ago. I think also there are just fewer mistakes being made! Going back a while a DVD would come out and people would spot a lot of relatively obvious things. Now so many get fixed with CGI before release, and with streaming being wholly digital, lots of things are fixed even after release.
Thanks for all your hard work.
You're welcome! I've got no intentions of abandoning it, whatever the traffic. Still enough regular and irregular visitors to keep it trundling along!
Thanks! I've got no intentions of abandoning it, whatever the traffic. Still enough regular and irregular visitors to keep it trundling along!
I have to assume it's just down to 1) maybe less people are submitting, and 2) the site primarily being run by one guy (Jon), and I have to imagine that he probably doesn't have the time to constantly check the site and do updates. I've noticed that sometimes it can take a while for things I submit to be posted, but they usually are within a week or two. To be fair, there's also been in excess of 600 mistakes posted within the last month, and I have around 60 mistakes waiting to be approved (going through the "Chucky" movies and shows looking for mistakes), so it's still happening... just a bit slower than it used to be back in the day.
I don't think it's a problem with fewer submissions. I've submitted several questions that have not made it onto the site yet, and mistakes were that were finally posted after an unusually long time.
Answer: Regarding the movie question, there's no way of knowing what was in the case. It is a plot device called a "MacGuffin," a term coined by director Alfred Hitchcock. It doesn't actually matter what the object is but it just drives the story. It can be any type of object or device such as a "secret formula," "enemy war plans," "nuclear weapon," "treasure map," and so on that the characters are either searching for or protecting. There was never any intention to reveal what it was. Its purpose is to motivate the characters' actions and tell the story. Most likely it was intended to be McGuffin just to keep the audience thinking about the movie long after it ends.
15th Feb 2024
Inside Man (2006)
Question: Why did the FDNY respond to a hostage situation?
Answer: Firetrucks and firefighters are quite often dispatched to non-fire emergencies. They're typically well-trained in emergency and medical aid, and also very quick and efficient, so a lot of the time, they will arrive at emergency scenes before police and paramedics.
Answer: In a hostage scenario, there's always a high probability of injuries and other situations arising that police are unable to handle. Paramedics are part of the fire department and tend to medical needs. Firefighters respond to any possible fires, explosions, gas leaks, etc. They may also have to cut off water to a specific building, extract hostages, or carry out other rescue operations. Fire departments regularly work hand-in-hand with police.
7th Feb 2024
General questions
I can't remember the name of this horror movie. It's from the late 2000s or early 2010s. A high school girl has a crush on her married teacher. She is a stereotypical quiet "loner." Somehow she dies, then comes back as a more sexy type with powers. At one point, after returning, she tells the teacher's wife "I died for him!" and the wife says "As would I!" (or something similar).
Answer: That sounds like the 2005 horror movie "Tamara." It was technically in theatres, but was primarily a video release.
Thank you. That is the movie.
11th Jan 2024
Malcolm in the Middle (2000)
Question: I vaguely remember one or two promo ads for this show, which quoted reviews by critics, basically saying that it was better than "The Simpsons" and a refreshing change. However, many sitcoms have come and gone throughout the run of "The Simpsons." Is there some reason why this particular show was being promoted as an alternative?
Answer: I wouldn't read into it too much. It's not uncommon for a few critics to really love a particular film or TV show and compare it to other works in their reviews. ("It's better than XXX!" or "The best show/movie of its genre since XXX!") And since it makes for a great piece of promotion, a lot of times commercials will use these quotes in advertisements as a way to get publicity. Again, something that happens all the time. I've seen plenty of commercials for different films, TV shows, video games, etc. like the one you're describing.
5th Jan 2024
Spider-Man (2002)
Question: Why doesn't the Green Goblin use his vaporising bombs against Spider-Man in the burning building, since he used one at the World Unity Festival?
Answer: You could make an argument that the Goblin didn't want to quickly kill Spider-Man, so he's toying with him by beating him, throwing the razor-bats at him, etc. Goblin is psychopathic and petty... he's absolutely go for the longer death after Spider-Man turned down his offer to team up. (But of course, the actual reason behind the scenes is that the vaporizing bomb was just meant to be a cool little one-off moment to show how much of a threat Goblin was. And it'd make the movie very boring if he kept using it, especially given how overpowered it was.)
5th Jan 2024
General questions
In the 2000s, many people enjoyed and appreciated movies from the '80s. Why is it that, in the 2020s, movies from the '90s and early 2000s need to be remade/"updated"?
Answer: Honestly, a huge factor is the financial one. Due to many differing reasons (50%+ drop in physical media sales over the last 10 years, streaming making content available for very cheap, skyrocketing production costs, inflation, etc.), studios have been losing money at a much greater rate than they have in the past. The industry has become very financially volatile. Therefore, brand recognition is very important. A familiar brand is typically a safer bet than an original idea. This is why sequels, remakes, adaptations, etc. have become the norm, and are given huge budgets... they're usually more likely to turn a profit. If people want to turn this around and have the studios start taking major risks and making more original films again, they're going to have to actually go see original movies in theaters with some regularity, consider buying DVDs/Blu-Rays again, etc. Basically, vote with your wallet... otherwise we'll continue to get nothing but remakes, sequels, etc.
I completely agree with your response. I think another, tiny factor is that trends and technology move faster now. In 2000, life still had many basic things in common with the 80s, despite changes in fashion and computers. Now, in early 2024, a show/movie from 2014 can already be "outdated": mentioning social media platforms that are less popular now, referring to social media trends, using words and phrases that are now considered offensive, etc.
Answer: I think this is mostly because of the advancements in CGI and special effects. Perhaps they think that better special effects will make the movie better. Also, if they think remaking a movie will make money, they will make it.
Money does seem to be a factor. '80s - early 2000s nostalgia has been a big trend for the past few years.
17th Dec 2023
Critters 2 (1988)
17th Dec 2023
The Visit (2015)
Question: Why didn't Loretta call 911 instead of just the Masonville Police station when she learned the two people her kids were staying with were not their Grandparents? In the event of two escaped psychopaths holed up in the house with two vulnerable kids, police would have connected the dots with a SWAT team, probably called in to rescue them. Tyler and Becca being in the house with the two unpredictable, deranged killers was basically the equivalent of a hostage situation.
Answer: 911 calls are usually automatically routed to the nearest local emergency dispatch center. From what I remember (haven't seen the movie in a while, so I could be wrong), the mother was still out of town, so dialing 911 wouldn't have been much help... she'd need to be rerouted, etc. Directly calling the police station was simply a faster way to contact the authorities closest to her children.
5th Dec 2023
General questions
For a period of time starting in the mid-2000s, it became common for most major DVD releases to have both 1- and 2-disc editions. Typically, the 2-disc edition just had more bonus content and cost a few dollars more, while the 1-disc edition had less content and was cheaper. I never understood this. This was before streaming became huge, so it didn't incentivize buying the DVD, nor did the 2-disc edition cost much more, so it couldn't have had much impact on profit. So why was this even a thing?
Answer: OP here. From everything I've been able to find, it pretty much just looks like it was just a bit of a gimmick. Put some extra bonus content on a second disc, call it a "Special Edition" or "Collector's Edition" or "Limited Edition," and charge an extra $5 for it. People who wanted just the movie could buy the single disc for the standard price, and people who wanted more special features paid a slightly more expensive "premium price." And it would subtly boost profits.
I think you're right - the extra content largely existed already, there was no significant cost to produce it, and mastering a second version of the DVD wouldn't cost much in the grand scheme of things either, so any extra amount would have been pure profit. Showgirls (first example I found) apparently made $37m in cinemas and $100m in DVD sales. A couple of extra dollars per unit would add up. It might also serve as "anchoring" if that's the right term - having a more expensive 2 disc version makes the single disc version look like better value to the casual buyer (while also appealing more to the movie buff). There are certainly some films I splashed out on for the fancier version because I was a fan (and then of course never really watched the extras much!), but going back a while there was literally no other way to see this extra content unless you bought the special edition.
From the perspective of why they were simultaneously released (and with a relatively small difference in price), I'd agree. But this is different from why two-disc versions were released some time after the one-disc version (and with a substantial difference in price). That is, the reasons why this initially happened are different from why it continued to happen.
I was trying to refer to concurrent releases in my question. Unfortunately, the character limit meant I could not give any examples. I was referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Transformers." I used to go to the store at midnight to buy new DVD releases around the time those movies came out, and there would almost always be a single disc DVD with just the movie and a few features, and a 2-Disc set with more special features released on the same day. (A 2-disc special/anniversary edition being released a few years later for an older title makes sense, and is a different matter entirely. I'm referring to when multiple editions of the same new release were put out at the same time.)
Yes, I finally figured this out! You are asking about a specific time period and looking for a straightforward answer, without putting things in historical perspective (the developing technology and decreasing costs of mass-producing DVD movies). The extras (plus a little more) that used to be included on the standard editions were now on a second disc with the package costing about $5 more. It probably came down to "will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?"
It probably came down to 'will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?' "and unfortunately when I was a teenager, I was, hahahaha. But yeah, the more I look into it, the more it does just seem like a total gimmick. (I feel like a good modern comparison might be steelbooks... cool packaging, but usually sold for a very high markup even though it's the same exact discs.)
My "victimization" came much earlier. I had the standard release versions of movies and, later, when I started to see much more expensive two-disc versions, I thought, "Who would buy these now?" Well, I think I ended up buying 3 versions of "Terminator 2." [Why?]
Answer: From my experience, the 2-disc versions provided two different formats. Typically, the 1-disc version was Fullscreen and, depending on its release, did have additional content like commentaries and deleted scenes. The 2-disc version included a Widescreen version as well as extra materials, extended cuts, remastered versions, or special edition, etc. Later, when Blu-Ray came out, the 2-disc set usually included a standard DVD version. Some DVDs were sold as 2-sided without a lot of extra content but having a Fullscreen and Widescreen version.
This doesn't really answer the question. I'm not referring to those. I'm more so referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Super 8". Their DVDs only came in widescreen, but had two versions. A single-disc edition with just the movie and a few special features, and a 2-disc edition that had more special features. I'm curious as to WHY many titles had single and two-disc editions with the only difference being the amount of special features. It just seems more logical to release just the 2-disc edition. This answer basically just explains that 2-disc existed.
I apologise for misunderstanding the question, because what you described in my experience was atypical. And in my opinion, it makes sense to release two versions, but I'm afraid to answer why if I turn out to still not understand the question.
No problem. It's a very weird, specific question, hahaha. Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't even really an answer beyond just "they decided to try it for some reason."
Answer: Simply put MONEY.
Profits are almost always, if not always, a factor. The two-disc versions with "extras" might have been enough to get certain movie buffs to buy them, even though they already had the single-disc version - but I doubt very many people actually did so.
3rd Dec 2023
Spider-Man (1994)
The Alien Costume: Part 3 - S1-E10
Question: Why did this design of Venom have light blue and pink on the outside? Something to do with the animated style?
Answer: I believe it was just a way to try and show the suit is "oily" or reflective. It also helps define the character's features since otherwise, he'd just be a flat black color. It's similar to how the black suit Spidey had blue outlines. (I don't know why they chose a pink/red color... maybe because red is associated with power/fire/war, so it's a more "evil" color?)
3rd Dec 2023
Friday the 13th Part 3: 3D (1982)
3rd Dec 2023
Cube (1997)
Question: I have heard something about Cube having an alternate or extended ending. Are there any videos of this by chance?
Answer: Not to my knowledge. The director said on Twitter/X that there was an extra scene during the ending that had been shot but that it was immediately removed from the film after the first assembly cut. He also said it will never be seen and joked that he "burned it and stomped on it." (Chances are the footage is just lost.) So I'd assume whatever it is REALLY didn't work or was too silly.
Answer: From Lost Media Wiki: According to several eyewitnesses, in certain theatrical screenings of the film, the scene in question was shown. It allegedly depicts Kazan walking out onto a beach (or a cliff's edge, depending on who you ask) on a purple alien planet, overlooking an endless ocean, as mechanical grinding noises are heard. As he turns around, both his footprints and the cube's exit itself vanish. Some have also reported that the sky is then shown, full of exoplanets. A pinch of salt is needed; however, this statement does have 4 sources.
1st Dec 2023
Clue (1985)
Question: Why did they film three endings?
Answer: The game has tons of different possible outcomes. So, to emulate that, they filmed different possible endings for the film.
Answer: I think to tie in the movie with the gameplay of the board game more. Often when playing, someone will incorrectly guess what happened, who was the killer, with which weapon, and what room. Then the answer in the envelope is revealed to show what really happened. So they made different endings like someone guessed wrong. I think the real question is why were there 3 different versions of the film released to theaters, each with a different ending. It seems it was a marketing idea that backfired and didn't even fit the concept of tying it into the board game.
1st Dec 2023
Twister (1996)
Question: Why did Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt dislike each other when working on this movie?
Answer: Reportedly, their personalities just didn't mesh, and it was also a very hectic shoot due to all the effects. So, the atmosphere was high-stress, which isn't typically conducive to people getting along. Though Hunt has stressed that they were always cordial after filming was complete and had even talked about potentially working on a sequel together a few times, so it seems that they didn't overtly dislike each other.
1st Dec 2023
Saw X (2023)
Question: What happens to the lady after the film ends that has her head in the hole? As during the film, she shows she has no morals. In the rest of the movies, you never hear her name mentioned or what happened to her. But surely, with him trapping her and taking the money at the end, it would piss her off enough to want to get the money back and seek revenge on him.
Answer: There's no definitive answer. It's left purposely ambiguous, presumably in case they want to bring the character back in the future. (There is a deleted scene on the Blu-Ray showing the door opening on its own once the countdown hits zero, so presumably she is able to escape.) As for her coming for him... we simply don't know. It's possible she'll show up again in a future film. But you also have to factor in that John has a LOT of evidence on her criminal misdeeds... so he likely could have her arrested and jailed if she comes for him.
25th Nov 2023
Signs (2002)
Question: How come Ray Reddy wasn't charged for killing Graham's wife? Since it was an accident, he most likely would've got sentenced for manslaughter. If so, wouldn't he have been sitting in a jail cell during the movie's storyline events?
Answer: According to a Google search and a few law websites, it actually appears that legitimately falling asleep at the wheel could potentially help someone avoid vehicular manslaughter charges. It would depend on if them falling asleep was the result of them behaving negligently. For example, if you took medicine that makes you drowsy or stayed up for 24 hours straight, you would likely get manslaughter charges, since you were behaving negligently. However, if it was legitimately just a freak accident (ex. You were more tired from a day at work than you realised and passed out at the wheel), you have a decent chance of avoiding manslaughter charges. (Or at least avoid a guilty verdict or harsh sentence if it went to court.)
Answer: Agree with the other answers, but would add that the accident was only six months earlier. The investigation, charges, a trial, etc. may be ongoing. Reddy could be awaiting sentencing or was sentenced to probation, community service, counseling, credit for time served, a suspended sentence, or restitution. Reddy could be out on bail or on his own recognizance while awaiting sentencing. It's unlikely he would be considered a flight risk.
Answer: It's never addressed in the film, so it's safe to say it's simply a plot contrivance. In the real world, he definitely would have been charged; the film chooses to ignore this for the sake of the story it wants to tell.
Who's to say he wasn't charged? Guilty people get off all the time, and if the judge thought it was just a case of an upstanding citizen making a freak mistake, he could have gotten probation and a suspended sentence.
You're right, I hadn't considered that, or the other answer, when I posted.
25th Nov 2023
Signs (2002)
Question: During the dinner scene, when Graham broke down with his family, the alien sounds come through the baby monitor as the red lights light up. Was that basically the alien call for the worldwide assault to begin, like the alien leader was telling the ground troops "Go!"?
Answer: It's impossible to tell what the message was since nobody can speak the alien language from this film. It was likely just picking up some sort of communication from nearby aliens.
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's never explained. It's entirely possible they were both killed considering they were launched through the ceiling, since that would have likely caused catastrophic head injuries. But it's also possible that given the cartoonish nature of the film, they were just ejected out of the house. It's up for the viewer to decide. (I personally am leaning towards them being dead given how violent Beetlejuice is.)
TedStixon