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)
TedStixon
22nd Jan 2015
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
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.
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.").
13th Jul 2017
Deep Rising (1998)
Continuity mistake: When the woman is "sucked" into the floor of the bathroom, at one point she accidentally pulls a faucet from a sink next to her, causing water to begin spraying upwards and raining down. Problem is, less than two seconds later, she's already completely soaked and we see a closeup shot of her kicking her feet, and there's already a large volume of water on the floor. Far too much water for how short a period of time it's been coming out of the faucet.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: 1st of all, she's sucked through the toilet, not the floor. 2nd of all, a creature coming through the toilet will produce a lot of toilet water all over the place.
The first point is debatable - we never see where she gets sucked through, so it's unclear. As for the second point, I just watched the scene to check, and she is literally soaked instantly between shots, and the water on the floor also appears almost instantly. The argument that the water came from the toilet doesn't explain how she is suddenly soaked between cuts or how so much water is already on the floor in the literal 1/24th of a second between cuts. They obviously cut the scene quickly and frantically to make it intense, and it created a minor continuity mistake where there is suddenly a lot more water, and she's much wetter. The original mistake is correct.
She sitting on the toilet. She hears the creature and looks directly beneath her. She stands half an inch before she's grabbed. Therefore, it easily stands she got pulled into the toilet. As for the water, I know a plumber who says something big that shoots up from the toilet like that can cause serious water damage. Therefore, the original correction is correct.
Whether she gets sucked through the toilet or floor frankly doesn't matter for the mistake, which is that she's instantly soaked. And I've done plumbing before too. It's literally impossible for that much water to appear in 1/24th of a second. (Which is the time between cuts, since film is 24fps.) Lemme explain it this way - it takes 1/3 of a second to blink your eye. (Equal to roughly 8 fames of film.) You're telling me that that much water could instantly appear in 1/8 the time it takes to blink your eye? That is literally impossible. If your plumber tries to tell you that your bathroom can suddenly be full of water in 1/24 of a second... you need a new plumber.
You may have done plumbing, but I doubt you ever had a giant sea creature come up from beneath the toilet either. Without knowing the situation of these creatures who caused a giant hole in tons of steel that the ship is, then all our answers are just speculation.
The fundamental problem is, it's literally impossible for that much water to have appeared that quickly and for someone to instantly be soaked in 1/24 of a second. It has nothing to do with giant sea creatures... water still has to obey the basic laws of physics. It can't just magically appear in the 1/24 of a second between frames.
8th Apr 2022
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Question: What did Anakin's torpedoes hit that caused the droid control ship to explode?
Answer: It was the main reactor of the ship, according to wookieepedia.
I have a problem with that because realistically would destroying a reactor be enough to cause whatever it powers to explode?
Not sure why you have a problem with that notion. It's a common sci-fi convention/trope that destroying the main reactor of a ship usually causes a chain-reaction that destroys the entire vessel. That's also what destroyed both Death Stars in the original trilogy. (Luke fires a missile into the reactor through an exhaust port/Lando and the others fly into the core and destroy the main reactor.) This is not a documentary... it can operate by nebulous sci-fi rules. Not to mention, none of these things actually exist, so who's to say destroying the main reactor WOULDN'T destroy the ship?
It destroyed the main reactor of the droid control ship itself, not what it powers. Anakin was inside the ship and blew it up from the inside.
If you go by official books put out you see lots of ships in Star Wars are powered by a gas type fuel source. Taking out a reactor could cause that fuel to explode as well. As you see in the movie it not one big boom but a lot of little ones at 1st. But once that fire gets to the main tanks it's all over.
8th Apr 2022
The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)
Trivia: Alec Baldwin has an uncredited role as the gangster Michael Zoroaster Marucci. Baldwin wanted his role to be uncredited as he hated this movie so much.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Yes, that's what the person who posted this on IMDb said, too.
That's not a valid correction. If the trivia was simply plagiarized word-for-word from IMDb, then it might be a problem... but it's not. It's worded differently. (Although to be fair, I've seen people plagiarize trivia from MovieMistakes on IMDb. I've submitted trivia on here, only to see it copy/pasted word-for-word on IMDb a few days/weeks later. At a certain point, it becomes a chicken/egg situation where you can't tell which came first.) But the fact that both trivia sections mention the same basic thing isn't an issue.
21st Mar 2022
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
Question: I know that Sam Elliott, who played General Ross in 2003 Hulk, wanted to play him again in this movie. Why was he rejected and replaced with William Hurt?
Answer: Presumably because this movie was retooled into a reboot that wasn't meant to connect with the 2003 film. So bringing back main cast members might have been seen as being potentially too confusing at the time. (This was nearly 10 years prior to JK Simmons being cast again as J. Jonah Jameson, which proved audiences can go with the same actors being in reboots. But in 2008, it probably would have been viewed as being too risky).
I do think you're right, although it's worth pointing out that Judi Dench was recast as M in the rebooted 2006 Casino Royale after playing her in the Brosnan Bond films. Not sure if that was the first time that's happened.
That is true, although I'd consider it a slightly different circumstance because the Bond films are basically a singular linear film series following one main character, and it was made clear that "Casino Royale" was essentially a full-on reboot. Comparatively, the MCU is multiple different stand-alone "series" (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, etc.) that all tie together via crossovers, cameos and team-up films. They were probably worried that people would assume the 2003 movie was retroactively part of the MCU. (Which you could probably argue is now true given the establishment of the multiverse, and the implication that previous non-MCU Marvel movies are all canonical as part of the multiverse... but that wasn't part of the plan at the time this movie was made).
1st Dec 2016
Tarzan (1999)
Factual error: The weight of an elephant is nowhere near that of a large cargo ship so even if Tantor was able to climb up the side of the ship the ship shouldn't have moved.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Is there different rules in the cartoon world and live action? Animals getting smashed flat then getting up like nothing happened.
It would entirely depend on the specific cartoon. Not all cartoons have a consistent logic. Ex. Sure, a character might get flattened then get back up in a Looney Tunes cartoon... but you'd never see that happen in "Akira," which is also a cartoon. If memory serves, "Tarzan" follows a loose realism when it comes to things like logic and physics, so a mistake like this would be valid.
19th Feb 2022
Scream (1996)
Stupidity: Dewey and Sidney jumpscare each other at the front door. There's just no possible logical reason for a deputy (or ANYONE) to be holding the mask the way Dewey is in the scene. If he were leaning against the door, he would have lost his balance or reacted in any way to the door shifting. (00:30:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Perhaps he was going to knock on the door with the mask. And Dewey didn't call out for Sidney.
I am not sure who would almost-but-not-quite knock with his hand wrapped in a mask and holding perfectly still keeping the pose, facing the opposite direction. It's a pose completely unnatural especially looking frozen and not in the middle of something else. (I amended the part about calling out, it was wrongly phrased since I wanted to say the exact opposite, thanks!).
He was about to knock on the door and was then looking behind him, probably heard a noise. He ain't the most solid type either.
I personally think this is a good stupidity entry. The stupidity section exists for stuff that isn't technically mistakes, but is still irksome or just silly. And this fits that. It's good for a quick jump scare, but doesn't really add up. It's a piece of evidence, so he probably wouldn't be touching it anyways, the way he's holding it is completely unnatural (nobody holds a mask they just picked up off the ground like that), and it's conveniently held at exactly the right height and position to be in Sidney's face when she opens the door. The movie was flying in the face of basic logic to manufacture a quick scare. And it's effective in context... but it doesn't really make sense if you dissect the scene.
9th Feb 2022
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Stupidity: Harry Osborn quite literally inherited the company his father founded. Presumably he owns or controls a majority of the stocks, because he was appointed CEO by his father and nobody questioned him. However, one of his employees can just instantaneously fire him from his position. We don't know the precise rules and internal regulations of Oscorp, but it's safe to say that this is not how company hierarchy works, especially considered that no charges are pressed on Harry and everyone would be out of a job (including Menken) if the circumstances were public - like having created a monster and waterboarding a guy in their basement.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Traditionally, CEO's can be fired if the company board votes them out of their position. (Something similar actually happens to Norman in the 2002 film.) While Menken doesn't specifically say this is what happened, he did frame Harry for covering up Dillon's "death," so we can safely assume that there was some sort-of emergency vote to remove Harry in the meantime as part of his power-play. (It'd honestly just be a waste of screen-time to show it.) Additionally, given the allegations against Harry (covering up a death), who would believe him if he came forward, anyways? Also, Electro is being waterboarded in a different location (Ravencroft Institute), not the Oscorp basement.
The thing is, the Raimi movie set the situation up properly. Norman was dealing with the board members in the meeting with the military already, and the business situation was addressed in a short scene that made clear a power play for profit. He was the boss, but not a monarch, and they don't "fire" him showing up with the guards anyway. The 'board' scene in TAS2? Harry treats everyone like lackeys and mentions that everyone will 'work' for Felicia; he bosses everyone around appearing to have inherited the position. It is mentioned that to depose the already ill and scandal-ridden Normal from his post would have needed legal action. Extra emphasis is given by Menken about any scandal going to hurt the company. Even if he had in mind to use Harry as scapegoat from the getgo, as I said, it would hurt the company terribly (going by the logic of the movie first and foremost), and he pulled off an amazing powerplay using incriminating evidence against Harry recorded an hour earlier and that he couldn't realistically share without destoying the company. It was damaged so heavily by an employee going rogue, what about the new CEO going nuts to the point of being kicked out, whatever the reason was? Lastly yes, Ravencroft appears to be part of Oscorp, so I simplified there. Of course yes, the throwaway "you're fired' line saves time, but the situation struck me as contradictory.
I can definitely understand where you're coming from, so I'll just say I think this is probably an agree to disagree situation. I feel like it's easy enough to explain away any contradictions or holes with some conjecture (I think like it ultimately comes down to the movie just not wanting to bog itself down explaining every detail), but the way the movie presents it is indeed a little over-simplified and janky. So I totally understand your take.
2nd Mar 2018
Scream (1996)
Trivia: After the release of this film, Caller ID sales shot up by over 300% for a period of time. This was a pretty big deal, too, as it was the mid-90's and Caller ID was not a standard feature on phones as it is now. The spike in sales is sometimes attributed to young adults seeing this film and becoming frightened by the idea of receiving a phonecall and not knowing who was on the other side, although it's never been 100% confirmed that this was the case. Either way, it's an interesting correlation.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's one of those rumors I'd really love to be able to get a quotable, reliable source for. The figure "300% up" is referred to the US market, from what I understand, but again, color me surprised if it's an actual, legitimate figure and not just one random number.
Submitted a word change saying that's it's never been 100% confirmed because it is indeed hard to verify. But given it's also one of those "cool factoids" that people have thrown around for decades, I do think this rumor has a place in the trivia.
15th Dec 2021
Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)
Plot hole: A core plot point (lifted by the comics) is that Venom needs phenethylamine, and the only way to get it is from brains and from chocolate. Let's just go with it and forget the fact that phenethylamine can be legally purchased as dietary supplement, which would solve every problem. So, Venom gets incredibly angry because Mrs. Chen's shop ran out of chocolates, and *therefore* they need to go raid a chicken plant to eat some chicken brain. Uh, Venom lives in San Francisco. Chocolate is sold everywhere. If Mrs. Chen ran out of it, there are hundreds of stores and vending machines that have it in abundance. The escalation does not make sense.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The point is he needs to steal it. At Mrs. Chen's shop he gets it for free because he protects her from robbers. Eddie doesn't have the money to buy all the chocolate Venom needs all the time. Stealing some chickens as an alternative is better than trying to shoplift at a different store.
In the rest of the movie Eddie lives in his old apartment constantly in need of repairs, but shows zero serious money problems. He has lavish breakfasts, and he replaces the $2,000 TV the same day. Raiding the chicken place appears riskier than slipping his symbiote in a vending machine or shoplift, especially if it's just temporary - again assuming he's so poor that he literally has no money to eat, which is something the movie should have let us know, instead of pointing to the contrary and making him talk angrily about the need for them to not draw attention.
Not only are the original mistake and Sammo 100% correct, but chocolate isn't exactly expensive. You can get 5 pound bulk orders of melting chocolate on Amazon for like... $25. And that's just a quick 2-second Amazon search. You could probably get it even cheaper elsewhere online. Even if Eddie hypothetically has little money (which doesn't seem to be the case - he has a nicely sized apartment in a major city, new TV, etc.), it's still ridiculous that he couldn't get his hands on chocolate. This is definitely a case of the movie ignoring practicality and reason to manufacture a funny situation.
I agree. There are many other stores that sell candy so all Eddie had to do was to go to one of those instead. Plus, at the end of the first movie, Eddie told Ann that he was going to become an investigative journalist, so he has a new job.
Suggested correction: Which would you rather have phenethylamine, chicken, or chocolate for dinner? That's like saying just because we need food to survive...we should just eat anything or buy our base vitamins and minerals over the counter and from the store.
Sure. How does that have anything to do with the entry? Venom wanted chocolate for dinner and not chicken, supplements to a diet don't mean that you can't eat actual food and the main point was and is that if a store in a metropolis is sold out of chocolate of any kind, there are a dozen other stores in a few blocks' radius who sell it without you having to resort to crime to eat it.
4th Aug 2008
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)
Corrected entry: Although Alex is now a college student, Rick (his father) has hardly aged since the last film. They look more like brothers than father and son.
Correction: True, they look like brothers (and in real life Brendan Fraser is only 13 years older than Luke Ford), but the way two characters look is not a movie mistake - only poor casting if it distracts from the story. And, as you mentioned, Brendan Fraser looks like he has hardly aged in the past seven years. Some people just hold onto their youthful appearance longer.
It should also be noted that this movie only takes place 13 years after the last one, and they were made 7 years apart. That's only a 5-year difference - not a tremendous amount of time at all. And in fact, in 2014 (13 years after "The Mummy Returns"), Brendan Fraser still looked pretty much identical to how he looked in this movie. He hasn't really started to show his age until the last few years and even then, he still looks quite good for his age. Some people really do just age very well.
29th Aug 2010
Scream 3 (2000)
Continuity mistake: The knife that was thrown at Dewey left the killers hand with blood all over the blade, but was perfectly clean when the butt of it hit his head to knock him out at the top of the stairs. (01:26:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Watch in slo-motion the sequence when he gets hit and you'll see the blade is bloody even during that. He then pulls out of his sleeve (literally!) a clean knife, but it's not supposed to be the original one, since he never retrieved it.
4th Feb 2022
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: The movie takes place in the fall of 1984, but when Dana visits the Ghostbusters for the first time, Janine to kill time is intently reading her copy of People Magazine with Cher on the cover. It's the January 23 issue; it's not an absolute impossibility, but it's obviously a magazine they picked up the day of the shooting (which happened late 1983 to early 1984). (00:21:15)
Correction: I'm sorry, but this is highly far-fetched. No mistake is sight in any way. There is absolutely nothing wrong about someone reading a magazine, new or old.
To add to what the others said, I'll also add that most businesses, doctor's offices, etc. don't usually have new magazines on the magazine rack. They tend to keep old ones around for people to read instead. Weirdly enough, there's actually a reason for it - studies/polls show that places that put out new magazines tend to get most of them stolen. So they purposely just put out whatever old magazines they have lying around. Chances are, that's one of the only magazines they had sitting around the Ghostbusters HQ.
Oh absolutely, as anyone who's been to the doctor's or even the barber shop has experienced (newspapers are usually the daily ones instead, it's cheap and makes sense), but it's not as if there is a waiting room or magazine rack there, and their business freshly opened so it's not a leftover. Again, I personally find the justification of the magazine clashing with the fictional timeline but matching perfectly the one of the shooting less straightforward than the explanation, but of course it's my own view and as I said with full disclosure and honesty in the entry, it's not a complete impossibility. We don't see the whole place so there can be a waiting table somewhere with magazines from 9 months prior that one of the Ghostbusters picked up somewhere and I don't deny it.
So why post it?
This is getting a little redundant but again; simple, it's her desk, there are no other magazines or magazines rack nor a waiting room in a place that just opened for business, and I find more believable by a very good margin that they used whatever magazine they had handy when filming, which happens to be the time when that magazine is from, than thinking that it was a deliberate choice coherent with the fictional world to have her read at her desk a random old thing. I respect the objections I have read so far, but I already weighed them before posting and anyone can make their own judgement on that weighing them differently.
I think you need to look up the word mistake before posting something new. Because it makes completely no sense to post this.
Ah, well, I explained more than abundantly why I thought it relevant to post the objectively verifiable detail with a caveat and I wouldn't randomly do it whenever characters happen to read a magazines in movies - the 'meta' explanation is by far more linear, and I say it as someone who had months-old mags in their backpack when I was a teenager. I respect other people's evaluations and I don't mind if the entry is downvoted based on a disagreement about its relevancy on grounds of not being sufficiently incongruous to be a mistake. I think we can leave it at that and refrain from suggestions on what other people need to do.;).
Sure, I said it all in the entry already. There's no law of nature or man-made that forbids a secretary from bringing at work a 9 months old weekly magazine. I think the real (or less far-fetched, if you will) reason is more than apparent, but do what you want with the information.;).
The fundamental problem is that you yourself said it's not necessarily a mistake... ergo, it's not a mistake. Sure, in a meta context, it probably was just a magazine they picked up before filming... but that doesn't make it a mistake in-movie. There're many reasons why someone might be reading an old magazine, which invalidates the mistake. Case in point, we keep old newspapers and magazines at my house to re-read, because sometimes they have good articles, recipes, etc. It's totally possible and even likely she might be reading an old magazine.
27th Aug 2001
Scream 3 (2000)
Revealing mistake: When the house blows up and Dewey, Gale and Jennifer jump off the balcony, we find that Gale is near the car, the killer jumps up behind her. Dewy takes a shot at him with a gun and it is obvious that the killer awkwardly slams himself against the car window, rather than being caused by the impact of the bullet.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually he would have to fake it because it is obvious, and later found out that he has a bulletproof vest on. if he wouldn't have faked it, everybody would've known that he had one on.
He faked really badly that being shot sent him smashing against a car, to avoid being suspected of wearing a bulletproof vest? How does that work? Dewey in the dialogue thinks he didn't even hit him.
Yeah, I'm with Sammo here. I don't really get the logic of the correction. I think it is just really awkward blocking/choreography/camera placement, and I do think the original mistake probably stands as-is.
27th Aug 2001
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: When Sid is moving the theatre blocks they are knocking people over, but theatre blocks are made of Styrofoam and so they would weigh next to nothing.
Correction: The killer, Debbie Salt/Mrs. Loomis, was only collapsing from the shock. You can tell by her expression and her gasp for air. The shock came from the moment of complete silence, then the crashing of the styrofoam theatre blocks.
While I do agree that the mistake should be corrected, I do think it also should be pointed out that a solid cubic foot of foam can weigh 1-2 pounds. Judging from their size, I think it's reasonable to say each of those blocks weights at LEAST 5 pounds. From the height they are being dropped, 5 pounds of weight can cause some real damage/pain. I once dropped a 5 pound weight on my head from just a few feet up, and it HURT. Dozens of 5+ pound blocks hitting from that height at once could be REALLY bad news.
I see no moment of complete silence (on the contrary, Sidney turned on the fake thunders and is banging stuff like a blacksmith in the back); If it's more the 'surprise' than the weight to knock her off the wall, the stuntwoman takes the blocks on her back, hunched over, so she was waiting for them, negating the effect of the actress that was looking up and screaming.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The whole plan of the Ghostbusters relies on the fact that the Statue of Liberty, being the symbol that it is, will rally the population of New York drawing their positive energies out. Forgetting the fact that a giant statue trampling things in the middle of the city is quite likely to inspire negativity, let's go with the movie's theory; it's not what it is shown. The people start singing, disturbing Vigo, at a random moment that has nothing to do with the statue showing up and in fact happens when it is already just lying on the ground.
Correction: Did you somehow miss all the shots of the people cheering as the statue walks through the streets? Watch this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpyvDWfK9qs They literally show the crowds cheering as the statue walks through the streets, thus supplying the positive energy the Ghostbusters need. The moment you're referring to where they start singing does indeed happen later, but it's a different scene entirely. Maybe you watched an edited version of the movie or something? Because they definitely show the statue bringing out the positivity in the crowds in every version I've ever seen.
Oh dear, no, I don't watch edited down versions if possible, especially when I submit the timecodes. If you watch the video you yourself posted -but I hope you didn't, since it's edited down and misses the one moment when you actually see the slime move from a single spot-, you'll see that not the statue nor the crowd cause the slime mass to move or do anything. So the statue brings the positivity out in the crowd at its best only when it's limp on the ground, just as I said.
After the slime starts to retract, it cuts to a wide-shot showing crowds outside cheering. It makes perfect sense that the closer the statue gets to the slime (therefore bringing the positive energy closer), and the more the crowd cheers them on, the weaker the slime shell gets. Hence, it starts to retract. I don't understand what the issue you're having is. No offense, but it just seems like you're trying to manufacture a mistake where there is none.
Manufacturing mistakes would be a terribly inefficient way to spend time when in the same time you can spot dozens others. We simply get a different vibe from the scene, and the representation works better for you (and other commentators) than for me. It's a fictitious shell and if you tell me that the fact that it parts from that one skylight makes sense because it's weakened, I honestly at this point I don't mind, I wrote "I stand corrected" to the main issue like 4-5 comments ago.;).
Correction: They brought the statue with them to break the slime around the museum, not to rally the people. It was covered in positive slime, which caused it to come to life, like the toaster. It's presence, and the positive slime, had a positive effect on the people around it. It lying on the street helps the positive slime affect the people around it. Just like the negative slime affecting the guys when they come out of the sewer. Apparently it doesn't need to be physically touched.
If the statue lying lifeless in the street were meant to influence people, there'd be any visual representation of it, my main problem with all of this is that they show nothing about the statue 'charging' or 'focusing' the power of positivity. However, you do have a point; the main goal was to break into the museum, after all, and the people chanting to save the day were not part of the plan, so I shouldn't nitpick that. The plan still makes no sense because it's scary as hell to have a metal giant roam the street crushing cars, and we have to fill a lot of blanks, but we can embrace the cheesy spirit of it. I stand corrected.
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.