Question: Why does Billy not tell anyone about his teacher's attack?
TedStixon
17th Feb 2023
Gremlins (1984)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
12th Jan 2023
The Diary of Anne Frank (1959)
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
8th Jul 2022
Army of Darkness (1992)
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.
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.
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.
28th Apr 2020
Malcolm in the Middle (2000)
Question: Why was Otto suddenly written out?
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.
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.
10th Nov 2015
Breaking Bad (2008)
Corrected entry: In the famous mugshot of Walter against a height chart, the chart goes up in nice 2 inch increments until 5'8." It then jumps to 6'0", completely skipping 5'10". Did they forget there are 12 inches in a foot, not 10?
Correction: This picture was never used in the show. This looks to be fan-made. Regardless, this picture was never seen in any episode of Breaking Bad, so it is not a valid mistake.
If the picture was used as a promo shot by the production team then it could be considered a mistake. If it's fan-made then the correction seems to be valid. Does anyone know the source of the image?
I can't find a source, but I don't recall ever seeing it in the show or in any ads, and in all honesty, it's pretty low-quality, so I seriously doubt it's a real production or promotional image. (The masking around his ears is quite bad, the "bruises" are digitally painted on - and poorly so at that, etc.) I would be willing to bet money on it being fan-made.
22nd Jan 2015
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Other mistake: When the two pirates are rowing toward the beach, and the dog is at the front, one of them is reading the bible. From the cover it's being held the right way up, but in a very quick shot showing the actual text of the book, the text itself is upside down. (00:30:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't a mistake. Pintel states that Ragetti can't read. So the fact that Ragetti has the book upside down adds to this claim. With regard to the cover and text being opposite ways round, Ragetti or someone could have reattached the cover at some point as the Bible is damaged in places.
I feel like arguing that the "cover may have been reattached" is far too much conjecture to be a mistake. It's much more likely to just be a minor continuity gaff as the mistake suggests.
2nd Jun 2022
Highlander (1986)
Question: In the director's cut (which seems to be the most widely available version these days), what's the deal with all the backflips in the opening fight? The editing is very awkward. Fasil goes from running, to doing backflips, then back to running, then back to doing backflips several times, seemingly between shots, during a short section of the fight. Is it just bad editing? Or is the movie trying to suggest that it's a different person doing the flips? Or... what? It's so confusingly edited.
Answer: The Director, Russell Mulcahy, started his career making music videos. He was known for using fast cuts and tracking shots.
Answer: I always felt the idea was given he was trying to move very rapidly whilst also being silent. In a garage with those shoes on your footsteps are very loud. Perhaps he was trying to confuse MacLeod as to where he was.
I'm not asking why he's doing backflips. I'm asking why the editing is so confusing, since he goes from doing backflips, to running somewhere completely else, then back to backflips at the first location between edits. (Look up the clip "The Highlander (1986) 1080p : Underground parking Fight Scene. Epic!" on YouTube and pay attention around 4:20.) He also loses his sword whenever we see him doing backflips, even though he's carrying it when he's running. The editing makes absolutely no sense.
14th Oct 2021
A Quiet Place Part II (2020)
Revealing mistake: The "baby" looked quite "rubbery" at times and its limited movements (even motionless) and lack of sound are indicative of a "fake" baby (doll) most of the time. The baby was mostly kept covered in some kind of box and did not even cry when the mother was running with it (while in her arms or in the box). (00:14:35 - 00:20:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is not really a "revealing mistake." Fake babies are used in movies all the time. Due to the complexities of filmmaking, it is simply impractical and impossible to use real infants for most scenes. Child safety and labor laws strictly limits how long a baby can be on set. A fake baby may or may not look "rubbery" but that is what they had to work with.
Your correction is precisely what makes it a revealing mistake. Explaining why a mistake occurs doesn't invalidate the mistake. You could only argue that it doesn't look fake or a real baby was used, but since that's not the case, the mistake stands.
A "mistake" is an unplanned and/or unwanted circumstance. Obviously using a fake baby was an intentional decision. At best, this should be classified as a "Deliberate Mistake."
This very website defines "revealing" mistakes as: "Anything which gives away filming techniques, such as stunt wires being visible, or glass smashing before anyone goes through it." (And I could be wrong, but I believe the definition used to be even broader.) An obviously fake baby falls under that umbrella, and always has. You simply can't argue that it's not a revealing mistake by the rules of this site just because it was a deliberate choice by the filmmakers. Heck, even under your strict definition of mistake (which is very problematic, because it doesn't really account for plenty of things that 99.9% of people would commonly consider "movie mistakes"), it's still a mistake, since the filmmakers wanted people to think it's real, and we obviously don't - ergo an unplanned circumstance.
It is a revealing mistake. They could have used CGI, shot some baby sequences separately and edited them in, etc. There are many ways they could have done things differently; they would just have been more complicated and cost more. The option they went with wasn't all they had to work with; it's just what they chose to work with.
23rd Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Plot hole: Strange says he can't turn back time any more since he does not have the Time stone, so he'll resort to "a standard spell of forgetting." The statement is already quite odd since even with the stone he never showed anything close to the ability to revert time on a global scale for the WEEKS it would take to get back to that moment. But no worries; the "standard spell" is in fact more powerful than the Time stone; for it to work, it can't just make the people forget, or else people would learn back about Peter from the gigabytes of pictures and stories published, the Daily Bugle's archives, Flash's published book, T-shirts etc.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He didn't understand the workings of the time stone as well as he did other spells. The time stone is definitely more powerful, able to trap an omnipotent cosmic being in a time loop. The spell focusses on 1 person's secret identity being forgotten from memory, hardly more powerful than what the time stone can do. In any case, the difference in power is not important to the plot.
The Time Stone in movies always focuses around limited areas, including Dormammu, with Strange concentrating during the activation. It's also a unique artifact and the most powerful in the universe. This is a "forgetfulness spell", but it needs to alter reality (physical evidence) to work, or it's useless, and it's a "standard spell" according to Strange. Was he downplaying it? Let's say he was; it's still a 'fire and forget' sort of deal that alters reality years back.
Suggested correction: I wouldn't say that a spell making everyone in the world forget about Peter is more powerful than the time stone. Memory loss is something that happens regularly (and pretty easily, T.B.H.) to people as a result of anything from illness to a bad bonk on the head. Therefore, it doesn't seem like it'd be something that'd be hard for a wizard to do. He's just applying that to a global scale, which doesn't seem like it'd be impossible if it is indeed a basic spell. As for evidence of Peter, it's really not hard to use conjecture to assume he also made evidence of Peter vanish from existence as part of the spell... making things disappear is a very basic wizardry/magician trick. Heck, it's basically a cliche.
I don't get the logic, sorry. It is easy to do it with a person, therefore it's also doable on a global scale? It's easy for a wizard to move a rock, then by that logic it'd be not that hard to move every rock? Instantly? And since it does that but also makes every physical evidence of it vanish, it is not a spell of forgetting. It has to restructure time and space on a massive scale in a very precise way, and here it is trivalized because the movie does not address the consequences (you will see proposed corrections of this entry that assume it changed nothing physical and it's just no biggie). For instance in the latest Strange movie, there's a magic item that is more powerful than any Infinity stone, but it's not something any wizard can access. The fact that a clichè exists (it's not like I haven't read One More Day, for instance) doesn't mean it fits every context (it's not quite the same doing it in the Tooth Fairy movie and here).
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that making people forget about something and making some stuff disappear restructures time and space. The film explicitly states that it doesn't - Strange says the spell "won't turn back time." It just makes people forget. (And presumably makes evidence disappear.) There's even a joke in the movie where Strange implies he uses the spell regularly, including an instance where he used it to make Wong forget about a party. Doesn't mean the party didn't happen. Just means Wong doesn't remember it. It seems like you're really over-reading and over-complicating the spell in your head. Forgetting about something (or making some books and computer files vanish) does not necessitate the rewriting of space and time... it just means people forgot and things disappeared. If I forgot about something, and the only piece of evidence vanished, to me, it basically never happened. Doesn't mean history was necessarily re-written.
The boundaries of what constitutes "over-reading" and "over-complicating" are subjective; to me saying "it's a basic spell of forgetting", castable on a whim, for something that necessarily has also to act globally if not universally (Nick Fury is not on this planet and he would forget, most likely) and does not 'merely' affect minds but a plurality of records and physical items dating back over a decade (remember we talk about the whole life of Peter Parker here, not just his association with Spider-man), is over-simplifying on top of misrepresenting. One of the writers answered on the subject by saying they have an answer to that they are not at liberty to reveal currently. We'll see if that is true, (or will just be ignored and dumped on the Sony writers who already spectacularly got it wrong in Morbius); the MCU is not just one movie, and Strange in the previous movies never showed the ability to change the universe deleting selectively parts of it with a 'standard spell'.
I think I can get where you're coming from with this. I just personally didn't see it as that big an issue. I think it's probably just an agree to disagree situation. Sorry if I came across as rude.
Suggested correction: Even if we assume the video footage of people saying that Peter is Spidey still exist, this wouldn't matter much. If anybody saw a video of themselves recorded a week ago saying something that they never remembered saying, they would laugh it off and assume it was some "Deepfake" or something.
Besides the fact that I would sue whatever media outlet published my deepfake and most certainly not laugh it off, if there's no magical alteration of reality/space/time to make that spell work, it would be entirely useless. Anyone could just type "Who is Spider-Man" on google and find out from a million sources.
21st Apr 2014
The Avengers (2012)
Factual error: During the scene on the Helicarrier where Bruce Banner "Hulks out" and jumps at the F-35B hovering just outside, we see the F-35B fire its guns, one inside each of its intakes. The F-35B has only one gun, externally mounted to underside of the fuselage. It would be impossible to mount a gun inside an aircraft's intakes.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: We can only assume it's a F35B but it's never stated at being one. It's a universe with a flying aircraft carrier. That could have similar looking planes with far different technology and specs.
I dunno... I feel that's a very weak correction. It's too nebulous and opens up too many holes. What's to stop people from applying that to every other mistake? (Ex. "Oh, well this movie's universe, blah-blah-blah, therefore nothing could be considered a mistake.").
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