TedStixon

12th Aug 2010

Poltergeist (1982)

Corrected entry: In the opening sequence, when Dana is in bed and hears Carol Anne say, "Hello, I can't hear you", for some reason there is a prosthetic leg lying across Dana's bed. (00:03:45)

mightymick

Correction: It's just Dana's leg.

Yup, she just has it at an awkward angle, but it's 100% her leg. Not sure how the OP thought it was a prosthetic leg to begin with. There's literally no reason for a prosthetic leg to be in the shot when they could easily use the actress' leg, and it looks far too real to be a prosthetic from an 80's movie.

TedStixon

26th Apr 2022

Scream (2022)

Question: Why can Liv McKenzie not go to see Tara Carpenter, her co-worker/close friend after her near-murder attack? Her absence is done to draw suspicion on her, but as she is later revealed to not be the killer, the question is left unanswered in the film. (00:15:45)

AdventurePlace

Answer: To try to throw them off the scent and add suspicion to make us think maybe possibly they're the killer(s).

This answer is literally part of the question. The question mentions that this was done to make the character seem suspicious. The question was asking why, in the context of the film, can't Liv go to see Tara. Not why in a behind-the-scenes sense.

TedStixon

Answer: It's never explained in the film, so any answer would be pure speculation. As you said, it was obviously done to draw suspicion onto her by the filmmakers, but there's any number of reasons she might not be able to, so really it's a case of picking your poison. (Perhaps she had a previous appointment she couldn't miss, perhaps she has a family matter to attend to, etc).

TedStixon

19th Mar 2023

The Whale (2022)

Corrected entry: Mary may have "fought hard" to gain full custody of Ellie, but - even if Charlie did "leave them" to be with his "lover" - Charlie should have still gotten at least court-ordered regular supervised visits with his daughter over the years, not shut off from maintaining a relationship with his biological daughter.

KeyZOid

Correction: Fathers often get the 'short end of the stick' in custody battles. It is entirely possible that Charlie was denied even supervised visitation. Especially if the judge was extremely conservative.

wizard_of_gore

Especially if the judge was conservative and anti-gay. Plenty of them around.

Charlie was not physically or sexually abusive toward his daughter Ellie (two major reasons to deny any visitation), so I have to disagree.

KeyZOid

I'm not sure how you could disagree. Women are 4X more likely to get primary custody than men, and it's really not unheard of for a parent to get little-to-no custody/visitation even if they weren't abusive to the child. Ex. My father was not abusive towards me, but I only saw him for a few hours every other week because that's just how the arrangement worked out. (Which in retrospect was good because he had other issues and I shouldn't have been around him more than that. But at the time it hurt.)

TedStixon

11th May 2006

Scream (1996)

Question: Why did Billy and Stu want to kill Tatum? I've read that she said Stu was bad in bed, but when does she say this in the movie?

Answer: They didn't have anything against Tatum specifically, her death was just necessary for their scary movie plan against Sidney. They also said that anyone who isn't a virgin dies in a scary movie, and we know Tatum wasn't a virgin.

Did they say "anyone who isn't a virgin"? I thought it was anyone who has sex *during* the horror movie events - not including people who were *already* not virgins.

Typically, the cliche is "sex or promiscuity = death." I don't think it necessarily has to be during the events of the movie. Debating the minutiae is probably just gonna make us run in circles.

TedStixon

Answer: I don't understand why people are getting hung up on the virgin thing. Sure, there are some movies where someone who isn't a virgin survives. But the common cliche in horror that everyone knows is that sex typically equals death. Doesn't matter if some movies don't follow the cliche... it's still the cliche, and Stu and Billy are operating by the cliches.

TedStixon

In addition to this, Stu and Billy were planning to be the two survivors and make "the sequel." They probably viewed themselves as the main characters. Tatum was one of the "side characters" who would typically be killed.

Except even in this movie, Sidney should be dead by that logic. While Randy is explaining that rule, Sid is upstairs breaking said rule with Billy.

Answer: But Amy Steel's Ginny in Friday the 13th Part 2 wasn't a virgin and she survived. Yet these guys claim to know horror movies.

Rob245

It's just a TV trope used in the movie.

lionhead

6th Jul 2004

Ginger Snaps (2000)

Corrected entry: If Bridgette knew that she was going to become a werewolf after she mixed her sister's blood with her own, why didn't she kill herself after she killed her sister?

Correction: She only infected herself to get her sister to come with her, then her plan was to "cure" Ginger, then herself. She didn't originally plan to kill Ginger.

I believe the point of the entry was that even though Ginger's death was accidental, that Bridgette still should have killed herself to insure that she wouldn't become a werewolf and start killing too.

There's no reason for her to kill herself. As far as she knew, the "cure" worked. She didn't intend to kill Ginger... the fatal stab was in a tense moment of inadvertent self-defense when Ginger attacked her. She fully intends to cure herself.

TedStixon

19th Jul 2021

Men in Black (1997)

Other mistake: The first time the neuraliser is used it shows hours, weeks and years. But at the end of the film the lead character tells J to remember that it's "days, months, years." (00:08:06 - 01:24:52)

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

Suggested correction: Perhaps there are different models of neuralyzers.

I don't think arguing "perhaps such-and-such" is necessarily strong enough of a reason to correct a mistake. Nothing in the movie indicates they are different models, so it's probably best to assume they're the same.

TedStixon

17th Feb 2023

Gremlins (1984)

Question: Why does Billy not tell anyone about his teacher's attack?

Answer: Gremlins have hatched and are about to start attacking the town and he's trying to stop them. Reporting a corpse is relatively low-priority in comparison to that.

TedStixon

The gremlins didn't start attacking the town until late at night but Mr. Hanson's murder occurred during the daytime. There would still be plenty of time to call the police and inform them of Hanson's death.

Again, it's low-priority, and there is definitely not "plenty of time." Billy realises that the cocoons have hatched and has to rush home to save his mom, and then Stripe immediately escapes, so he has to follow Stripe and try to stop him... and then Stripe multiplies and Billy realises the town is about to be overrun. Reporting a corpse can wait. Would you stop and take the large amount of time needed to report a dead body when your mother is in mortal danger or the town is about to be overrun?

TedStixon

10th Dec 2001

The Crow (1994)

Corrected entry: If it has been a year since Eric and Shelley's death, who the hell has been feeding the pedigree house cat, which would be incapable of hunting for itself, for the last year to keep it at its same size?

Correction: Cats though domesticated are still wild animals. I know from experience that a cat can fend for himself when it is needed. Plus there are people who leave food out for stray animals.

Sol Parker

Correction: I have an indoor house cat who's never been allowed outside unsupervised or without a leash, and despite the fact she's pampered and doesn't have to fend for herself... she definitely still can. She catches (and eats) mice every time we get any in the house, is a keen hunter and is super cautious and territorial when she needs to be. She still has all of her survival instincts. So yes, house cats can definitely thrive and survive without their owner around. Especially in an apartment building like Eric's where she could easily get in and out.

Correction: The young girl, their friend kept coming back to feed the cat.

She specifically says "I thought you were dead" when she finds the cat, implying she hasn't seen it in quite some time. She also had to break into the building just to get inside. She definitely wasn't coming there to feed it.

TedStixon

Sorry meant the young girl.

28th May 2007

The Monster Squad (1987)

Corrected entry: They make a big scene that a virgin is needed to read the text from Van Helsing's diary in order to get rid of the monsters. After Patrick's sister fails because it turns out she isn't a virgin, everyone freaks out until they realize Phoebe could help them out. Not once is it mentioned the virgin had to be a female. So why couldn't the 12 year old boys read from the diary and get rid of the monsters?

SAZOO1975

Correction: First: 4 out of 5 definitions listed for "virgin" refer to females. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/virgin Second: In all of mythology and folklore, virgin always refers to females. The gods asked for a virgin to be sacrificed, the women/girls were gathered not the people that have never had sex. When some bit of folklore needs to be read aloud by a virgin, odds are they are asking for a girl.

Rlvlk

You would be correct in the correction, however that doesn't explain how Scary German Guy can summons the vortex. And yes I will say that because when Dracula was going after Phoebe, Scary German Guy was still reciting the text yet Phoebe wasn't repeating it, just whimpering. Yet the vortex still showed up.

lartaker1975

But Phoebe repeated the exact phrase the peasant girl did in the opening scene, those seem to be the key words that unlock the vortex.

I understand where you're coming from, but I'd disagree. Looked up a couple clips of the scene on YouTube, and they make a point of showing Phoebe repeating most of the words near-perfectly (at least as close to perfectly as a small child under distress could do) between whimpers. And I think you could make a compelling argument that even if she doesn't say them all 100% perfectly - say she's just barely whimpering some of them out between cries - it'd still count for the spell.

TedStixon

I disagree. I've watched this movie hundreds of times. All we hear is her whimpering because she's scared. No indication is given that she's still talking.

lartaker1975

I just looked up the scene again. They show her repeating the words perfectly and completing the spell after Frankenstein throws Dracula away from her. There's really only a few seconds in the entire scene when we hear her whimpering instead of saying the words perfectly. I still think it's within reason to argue that she did enough for the spell to work, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

TedStixon

Factual error: Anne Frank received her diary on her birthday, and started writing on it 1 month before she went into hiding. In the movie however, she is presented with the diary on the first she arrives at the hiding place.

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

Suggested correction: Since this movie is based on actual events and not considered a documentary, then the film-makers are allowed to change things to their liking.

lartaker1975

While I feel like this sort-of correction could apply to certain elements of movies based on true stories like dramatized scenes (since there has to be some condensation of time and some elements boosted for drama, which can be chalked up to filmmakers changing things), I think a film based on a true story contradicting a known hard fact like this should 100% count as a mistake. Otherwise, you could just as easily argue that any factual error in any film is invalid because the filmmakers are "allowed to change it."

TedStixon

1st Jan 2023

General questions

I remember seeing a movie about 10 years ago, I think. I wanna say it was a heist movie or something along those lines, and it may have been a British film, but I was honestly deathly ill at the time and can't remember too much. All I remember is that there was a team of criminals, and one of them was an amateur adult-film actor, and I think there was a scene where he was tortured (and possibly threatened with castration if not castrated?) and killed for information. Ring any bells?

TedStixon

Answer: The Bank Job (2008) based on a true story. A femme fatale, Saffron Burrows, convinces Jason Statham and his crew to rob bank full of safe deposits, not knowing it's a cover to retrieve some photos of a royal family member in a "Fifty Shades" situation. It takes place during the 1970's. Unfortunately, the other boxes belong to the mob. They capture and torture the adult film actor for information and as a hostage.

Thanks! That seems to be the one.

TedStixon

26th Aug 2022

Game Night (2018)

Deliberate mistake: When Michelle brings up the photo of "Fake Denzel" on her phone, she says she put it into a hidden folder. Problem? She only presses on her phone once (based on the sound you hear), and has the photo up and filling the screen within about one second. Totally preposterous. Obviously, it was done that way to keep the scene moving quickly... but there's no way a single button press and a timespan of about one second is going to bring up and maximize a photo from a hidden folder on her phone.

TedStixon

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

Suggested correction: The very faint click you hear could be her phone unlocking, so we don't know how often she taps the screen. That said, yes, it's unlikely she'd be able to access the photo that fast.

I don't understand this correction, because it literally just seems to reinforce the original mistake. Unlocking her phone wouldn't instantly bring up a photo in a hidden folder.

TedStixon

25th Dec 2022

General questions

I remember seeing a sketch show in the US in the late 90's or early 2000's. There was a sketch that was parodying James Bond where the villain was going to kill the Bond character, but realised Bond always had an out for everything. (Ex. "I can't feed you to alligators because you'll just run across their heads like a bridge!" etc.) At the end, the villain got so frustrated, he just killed himself by grabbing onto an electrified panel. Does anyone know what sketch show this is from?

TedStixon

Answer: I found my answer. Evidently it's a skit by Hale and Pace, an English comedy double-act, and it's on YouTube if you search "Hale and Pace Bond." Some of their skits were shown in the US in the 90's as part of the "Ohh, Nooo! Mr. Bill Presents..." comedy show, which was a show that aired comedy skits and shows they licensed from overseas, and were introduced by the character "Mr. Bill." (A little man made out of clay who would comedically be injured and squashed in every episode while screaming "Oh nooo!"). That's where I saw it.

TedStixon

Answer: I don't know about a sketch, but in an episode of "The Simpsons," a character Frank Grimes gets so frustrated that Homer is so dumb but yet archives so much acclaim, becoming an astronaut, winning a Grammy and becomes friends with celebrities. He sets Homer up to fail, but yet wins an award. Frank throws a tantrum, doing dumb things like Homer but ends up electrocuting himself. There have also have been several episodes spoofing James Bond.

Definitely not that. This was a live-action sketch show specifically parodying James Bond.

TedStixon

6th Oct 2008

Gremlins (1984)

Corrected entry: At the very end of the film, just before the credits start rolling, the clouds in the sky can be seen to move behind the moon - this is impossible.

Correction: Actually, the clouds are moving *in front* of the moon (if you look carefully, you can see mostly transparent wisps). The moon is so bright and the cloud layer so thin that the light shines through them.

JC Fernandez

I believe most people will see it as in front of the clouds if they are even paying attention.

Most people would be wrong, then. You can see faint shadows over the moon as the clouds move past it. They're passing over the front of it while moon illuminates through them as the correction states. It's not the greatest effect in the world (it all appears to be layers of matte paintings), but nothing about it is a mistake per se.

TedStixon

19th Jul 2022

The Crow (1994)

Question: We all know Brandon Lee was shot and ultimately died of his injuries. The death was recorded and has ultimately been destroyed. But does anyone know what scene it is where the accident happened? I've read that it was the scene where he jumps on the table and is shot off before popping up, and I've read that it was a scene with just Funboy shooting him with a revolver. There have also been articles where it's described as an "unknown scene"

Ssiscool

Answer: To add, there are other websites besides Wikipedia, that also confirm that Brandon's death occurred while filming the scene of Shelly's rape.

Answer: This is from Wikipedia: On March 31, 1993, at EUE Screen Gems Studios in Wilmington, North Carolina, Lee was filming a scene where his character, Eric, is shot after witnessing the beating and rape of his fiancée. Actor Michael Massee Funboy fires a .44 Magnum Smith and Wesson Model 629 revolver at Lee as he walks into the room.

raywest

As we are all aware, Wikipedia isn't the best for credibility. Is there any other source for this information? As like I said originally, I've read articles where it's the scene where he falls off the table, and others where it's just "an unknown scene".

Ssiscool

That Wikipedia entry is cited with a source to an official news article, so it's totally legit. I've never seen an article where it says it was the scene where he fell off a table. I've only ever heard it mentioned as the scene where he finds Shelly being beaten and raped. But here are some other articles about the incident: https://ew.com/article/1993/04/16/brief-life-and-unnecessary-death-brandon-lee/ and https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-01-mn-17681-story.html.

TedStixon

24th Sep 2022

Blade: Trinity (2004)

Other mistake: In the opening fight, right before the title card, Blade fights five vampires. He kicks one, who falls onto the ground and starts to crawl away. He then kills the other four vampires with his weapon (sort-of a blade that's on a line he can whip around). After those four vampires "dust," you see the fifth vampire (the one Blade had kicked earlier) on the ground... and he spontaneously "dusts" for no reason whatsoever. Blade did nothing to him... he just dies for no reason.

TedStixon

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

Suggested correction: He gets hit by the silver knife on a string (whatever it is called) like the others in 1 swing (there are 5 in total BTW). A small touch seems to be enough to dust them.

lionhead

You are correct there are five (typo), but the last vampire does not get hit by the knife in any way that I can see. Watch this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LkxaihdyRE Blade swings the knife-line above his head (you can see the line in the entire shot), and there's never any point that I can identify where it hits the vampire on the ground. Blade swings it in an upward motion, and you can see the line goes slack after it hits the last vampire on the left side of screen, implying that it stopped and fell to the ground in that direction.

TedStixon

The blade goes around his head at least twice before it hits the last 2 vampires. I admit that it's unlikely but you can't really see where the blade goes unless you go into slowmotion (if that even shows anything as it's all CGI). It could have hit him at any point.

lionhead

It does go around his head twice and is quite fast, but it is definitely visible throughout the shot (slow mo is not required), and at no point does it go low enough to hit the vampire on the ground. It would need to completely defy all laws of physics to do that.

TedStixon

28th Jan 2004

Predator 2 (1990)

Other mistake: In the slaughterhouse scene, after Harrigan has injured the Predator with his shotgun and Keyes reappears, the Predator throws its disc, and severs Keyes in half at the waist. We see his legs flop to the ground, and blood pour from above, but his upper half (torso, backpack and weaponry) mysteriously remain hovering out of sight. (According to the director, the MPAA made him cut the footage of the top half of his body hitting the ground because it was too gory, creating this odd error). (01:21:50)

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

Suggested correction: We don't actually know if the disc completely cuts Keyes in half (or just passes through him and leaves a gaping hole). You see the blood, but the movie is edited so that it cuts back to Harrigan looking on in horror for a split-second, then back to Keyes' body on the floor (mostly obscured by a cement pillar).

They blatantly show his legs hitting the ground without the top half! I can only assume you watched an edited-for-TV version or something. It's VERY clear in the movie that he was cut in half. (In actuality, the scene was the victim of the MPAA according to the director... they had to cut the bit where the top half of his body hit the ground because it was too gory... creating this odd movie mistake).

TedStixon

Trivia: Bafflingly, despite having little sex or profanity, and only minor cartoonish violence, the film was slapped with an NC-17 rating when it was first submitted to the MPAA. Everyone involved with the film was shocked. Turns out, a single 1-second shot of a little black, blood-like goo splashing onto a wall following a decapitation was the reason the MPAA gave the film an NC-17. Once it was cut, the film was reduced to an R.

TedStixon

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

Suggested correction: While it's true that it initially got a NC-17 rating, it wasn't because of a 1-second shot of goo. It was mainly for the decapitation scene and ostensible gore. Director Sam Raimi trimmed down the decapitation scene, but refused studio pressure to trim the movie down to a PG-13 rating, so most of the people involved in the actual making of the film weren't expecting a PG-13 rating.

Bishop73

The one-second shot was from the decapitation scene you mentioned. It's the shot the bloody goo splashing on the wall after he slices the hag's head off. As for the second point, upon looking around, I'm finding conflicting reports. I've only really seen one or two sites saying Raimi "refused" to trim the movie down, and many more that imply he tried to appease them for a PG-13 and had no reason to believe it would be rated R/NC-17 due to how cartoonish the film is (several of these sites also cite a book as evidence, but I can't find the book online). But given there are conflicting reports, I'll edit out the last bit.

TedStixon

Answer: The actor was diagnosed with cancer and was going through treatment, and was physically unwell. As a result, he had to drop out of multiple projects, including "Malcolm in the Middle." He sadly passed away five years later.

TedStixon

Answer: Because the actor died unfortunately.

He actually died five years after the show ended. It was because he had cancer and was going through treatment, and was physically unable to continue doing some of his roles.

TedStixon

26th Aug 2003

Tremors (1990)

Corrected entry: When Mindy is getting her picture taken next to one of the graboid's tongues, look at the shelf of movies behind her when the camera zooms out its farthest in that shot; in the second row down (I think it's the in the second row down), if you look really closely, you can see that one of the movies is Tremors. (00:25:40)

Correction: This is simply not true. The edge of the tremors VHS is black with Tremors written down the middle in orange writing with a small picture at the top of the main characters. There is no black video with orange writing in this scene.

They wouldn't have known what the VHS tape's final design was going to look like when shot it well over a year prior.

TedStixon

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.