Corrected entry: Despite being set in Britain, the detective that visits Kirsty is from the local homicide division. UK police forces don't have homicide divisions.
TedStixon
29th May 2005
Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)
Correction: If this is correct, why did Larry say to Julia at the beginning "we are on your turf now"?
The films were originally meant to take place in Britain, but Clive Barker and the producers changed their minds during production and reworked the film slightly so that it would take place in the US. (For example redubbing many of the actors' lines to give them American accents.) The line about Julia being on her "home turf" is therefore now technically a mistake since it's a remnant of the original script. (They likely didn't have time to reshoot the scene to remove the line.) But regardless, Clive Barker has stated that the films as released are intended to take place in the US.
16th Jan 2018
Silent Hill (2006)
Question: How does the cop end up in the alternate Silent Hill? Alissa doesn't need her, and she shows up after Rose has already explored a little. I wouldn't expect Alissa to leave the opening to The dark Silent Hill open (not how you trap someone). Furthermore when it shifts from them and the spitting monster to the father and police, the police are already there, how did they not end up in the dark hill?
Answer: It's never explained in the film, but in all likelihood, it's feasible that Alessa brought her into the "fog world" in order to help Rose with her goal. Especially as she likely senses that Cybill is protective of children, and thus would want to help find Sharon. Or she simply was pulled in somehow when she was pursuing Rose. It's difficult to say, since the "rules" for how the town works in the film adaptation are not as clear as the rules from the original video-game, and there are plenty of changes.
Answer: All three died in the wreck. This is how they were able to enter the purgatory version of Silent Hill and why Alessa and Rose returned to their own home to find it similarly deserted.
Nobody died in the car-wreck. This is a fan-theory that got out of control and contradicts not only the sequel (where it's blatantly shown they are alive), but this film's internal logic (which operates on the idea of there being multiple realities/dimensions) and the logic of the video-game source material. (Which similarly operates on the idea of there being multiple realities).
Any word on why Alessa and Rose returned to a home that was shrouded in fog just like Silent Hill, and why they and Christopher could not see one another? They left Silent Hill but remained in the alternate dimension? I'm genuinely curious because this is the first I've heard that their deaths were just a fan theory. I know Alessa was in the sequel, but I just chalked that up to the sequel being a really, really bad film.
The implication at the end of the movie seems to be that Sharon and Dark Alessa merged back together into one person, and she is purposely keeping herself and Rose in the fog-world. While the movie itself isn't clear about why, a common interpretation is that Alessa wants to be together with Rose forever, perhaps to have a mother figure. (Which is definitely keeping with the film's themes of motherhood and the repeated mantra about mother being god in the eyes of a child.) The sequel is admittedly really bad and ret-cons this. But neither film indicates that they died.
17th Mar 2020
Die Hard (1988)
Question: While running away from the bad guys, John McClane severely wounds feet by stepping on broken glass. Wouldn't his feet be at risk of infections if they were as severely wounded as shown in the movie? He's feet don't appear to have any infections.
Answer: Infections take time to set in. The whole events of this film take place over 1 evening. Not long enough for an infection to set in. Especially since he receives medical attention at the end.
How long would John have to go without getting medical for his feet to get infected?
Per a google search: "An infection can develop any time between two or three days after the cut occurred until it's healed."
Answer: Infections take a while to develop - the events of Die Hard are borderline real time, and given the injuries happen towards the end of the film, that's way too soon for any significant side effects.
22nd Nov 2018
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016)
Corrected entry: At the beginning the Red Queen said that the last human settlement will fall in 48 hours unless Alice releases the anti-virus, however when Alice does release the anti-virus (a few seconds before the timer ends) she says it will take years for it to reach around all the corners of the globe, this does not make sense and implies that the last human settlement will fall anyway.
Correction: I think you misunderstood what was happening. The human settlements were not being killed by the virus. They were being attacked by forces from the Umbrella corporation. The Red Queen explains in the final scene that once Alice killed Dr. Isaacs and released the anti-virus, she was able to take control of Umbrella and stop the attacks, saving the settlements.
That doesn't make really sense. What umbrella employees are left to do that? Also it's just bad writing.
The forces might not necessarily be Umbrella employees. They could be controlled creatures, clones or any of the other forces Umbrella has been shown to possess throughout the six movies. You can basically pick your poison, because Umbrella has been depicted as having near-limitless resources. Regardless, the movie does offer an explanation, and this particular mistake is incorrect because it is contrary to what the movie told us. Plus, like it or not, bad writing isn't necessarily a mistake in and of itself.
10th Apr 2020
Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003)
Corrected entry: Gogo went in with white shoes. She dies with red shoes.
Correction: Her left shoe is red because the Bride stabbed her in the foot with the nail-studded table leg.
I just loaded up the scene on YouTube, and LorgSkyegon is 100% correct. Her left shoe looks red because it's stained with blood. But if you look closely, her right shoe is still white.
6th Mar 2020
Parasite (2019)
Corrected entry: The landscape bonsai is a very heavy rock. When the apartment floods the rock floats to the surface. (01:37:25)
Correction: You missed the point of the scene. The rock floating implies it's a fake reproduction. It was never real. It's kind of a microcosm of the whole story. It's supposed to bring good luck and wealth, but it's hollow and fake. Just as the Kim family's attempts to move upward and find wealth via the Park family ends up backfiring and meaning nothing in the end because it all goes to hell. (SPOILERS: The fact it's a fake also helps explain why it doesn't kill Ki-Woo when he's beaten over the head with it).
Oh. OK. But then why when it is originally found it is at the bottom of the water and not floating? At least that is what I remember. I could be wrong.
Simple answer: It's much more cinematic for it to be underwater and then rise to the top, revealing it in a dramatic way. It gives the reveal of it being a fake more impact. If he just randomly saw it floating, the moment wouldn't work as well. (But I'm sure you could also make an argument that it's being pushed around by all the debris floating around, the current in the water, etc. and it got pulled under for a few seconds).
I agree with you, but up to a point. I was referring to the fact that when he first got the rock he got it from the water and he got it from the bottom. Or am I remembering it wrong?
The mistake is 'deliberate' by account, because, quoting a page that is based on what the actor playing the son says; "In the script, the rock didn't originally float," Choi recalls. "But when we were shooting, director Bong was like, 'You know, I think it would be better if the stone floats up through the water.' I remember thinking, 'Whoa. What?' ", On the other hand, I wouldn't really extend this alleged bit of symbolism in one shot, to infer properties of the rock on other than that single scene; the rock has always been presented and described as heavy, and not the foam prop that it is, and if it were hollow the characters would have noticed and made it apparent earlier. Not even the director and commentators of this particular bit support this. As you say later in the discussion, it's just "more cinematic" to do so but it I don't believe there is reason to paint it as a reveal. Therefore I'd say this should not be corrected but rather changed as 'Deliberate mistake".
I'll agree with this. Thanks, Sammo.
12th Nov 2008
Black Rain (1989)
Revealing mistake: Watch Andy Garcia's decapitation scene. His head starts to come off before the sword makes contact with his neck. Slow motion helps but is not required.
14th Jan 2020
Men in Black 3 (2012)
Factual error: When Boris jumps out of Lunar-Max, you can see a complete Apollo Lunar-Module (LM). The LM consists of a Descent Stage and an Ascent Stage. We can see both, obviously the Ascent Stage was never used. That doesn't make any sense, because the Apollo Astronauts need to use/"consume" (climb in and "fly" away) the Ascent Stage to leave the moon.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It could just be a copy of the original. For all we know the lunar landing was staged in this world.
This is far too much of a stretch to be a valid correction. What reason would there be to put a copy there? Also, the Apollo 11 mission to the moon absolutely having to happen is literally a plot point.
The men in black have shown to use alien technology for many of the things they do. This could include the Lunar-Max prison. I agree the lunar landing is a plot point and thus probably true, but why not make a replica in front of the prison as a monument? It doesn't have to be built right next to the site of the first lunar landing. Seems a bit silly to me.
Remember, one of the site's rules is "don't just try to think of an excuse" when correcting entries. Nothing in the film suggests it's a monument, therefore suggesting it's one to try and correct the entry is not valid.
I look at if it's plausible. I guessed since in this universe humans have access to advanced technology the moon landing seems to be more of a coverup for something secret or simply a staged thing. I think this because in MIB 1 they show the world expo observatory towers were in fact real spaceships and they had been there since 1964, so they already had spaceships before ever going to the moon. Again, though, its not relevant to the mistake. It's also obvious with the prison on the moon that they have been there multiple times and thus changed a lot. Building the prison in front of the landing site is again a bit strange so therefor I think it's just a replica, to show visitors. It's not impossible so it can hardly be called a mistake, just something that isn't explained. I'm not making excuses, there may not be actual evidence that it is a replica, but there is no evidence it is the real landing module either.
I don't understand how the Men in Black using alien technology has anything to do with this entry. Regardless, nothing in the film suggests that the capsule is a monument. It's even roped off, much like museums often rope off actual artifacts.
4th Jun 2004
The Mummy (1999)
Question: The answer for another question made me wonder. If Imothep was alive when put in his sarcophagus, how can there be jars with his internal organs elsewhere? Wouldn't they still be in his body in order for him to be alive?
Answer: If you're referring to the only jars that are used in the movie, those are Anck Su Namun's organs. Not his. Near as I can tell, his organs were not taken, hence him being alive.
They are his body parts; remember that he had to get the body parts from each of the adventurers to complete his resurrection (he left one guy without eyes or a tongue and sucked the life out of him).
No, they are Anck Su Namun's. The mummy steals the man's eyes and tongue because he's been decomposing and his own have rotted off. It's part of his regeneration process. He simply didn't have time to fully "suck him dry," as the movie puts it before Evie stumbles onto him.
Answer: He was buried alive as part of his punishment so they can't be his. They are Anck su Namun's. He needs them for when he resurrects her. He gets organs when he fulfills the curse by taking them from the men that opened the chest.
His organs were probably eaten by the bugs, if they weren't they probably decayed, hence why he needs to replace them with the organs of others.
The priests cut off his tongue as he was being linen wrapped, but I doubt it was placed in a canopic jar. But it kept him from doing invocations or screaming even though a wordless scream is possible with no tongue.
15th Apr 2019
Bumblebee (2018)
Question: Why didn't Frank Welker reprise his role as the voice of Soundwave for this film?
Answer: I couldn't find any other information, but honestly... Soundwave is barely in the movie. Probably just wasn't worth it for the production to pay Welker to come in just to record a few throwaway lines.
I considered that possibility as well, but since Peter Cullen reprised his role as the voice of Optimus Prime yet again for this film despite Prime's minimal involvement, it doesn't quite wash. Also, given Frank Welker's highly prolific voice acting career, it's unlikely he would have declined on the basis of pay or importance of his involvement.
Soundwave was barely in the movie (he's literally only in a few shots) and only had one or two lines. As the other answer suggested, it probably just wasn't worth it for the studio to pay Welker to come in, or they just didn't feel it was necessary given that Soundwave was essentially just a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo. Optimus has a much larger presence, and Peter Cullen's voice is pretty synonymous with the character in the film series. Hence, it was worth it to have him return.
19th Jul 2019
Spaceballs (1987)
Corrected entry: When President Scroob is beamed to the next room, his head is on backwards. When he pulls away the back of his coat and says, "Why didn't somebody tell me my ass was so big?", his hands are angled like they are backwards as well. His palms are pointing towards his back. They should be facing the other way, as well as his thumbs being reversed.
Correction: The crew remarks that his head is on backwards. It doesn't mean his entire torso can't also be backwards.
To be fair, they even admit this was a mistake on the Blu-Ray edition of the film. (There's a special feature that points out various flubs.) It was really only meant to only be his head that was reversed.
Well, I think you could argue that it may have been a mistake as far as the filmmakers' intent was concerned, but it doesn't necessarily translate to mistake with respect to the scene itself. Technically, Skroob's head was on backwards. Nothing any of the characters said contradicted that.
13th Nov 2019
Mortal Kombat (1995)
Revealing mistake: When Scorpion explodes, if you pay attention, the explosion doesn't really make "sense." The first "burst" looks fine, but then, midway through the shot, some of the debris in the air suddenly vanishes or fades out a few frames before the second "burst" occurs. Additionally, the way the second "burst" happens gives it away as an added effect, as it doesn't really overlap the background properly. (It looks like an explosion that was filmed on a blue-screen and then just added over top of the footage, as it doesn't interact with the environment properly).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Scorpion is an undead being fighting in another realm of existence. He doesn't necessarily have to explode in a way that "makes sense."
The mistake pertains to issues with the somewhat shoddy execution of the effects, which are a result of the film's production. I don't think him being an undead fighter from another realm of existence is really a valid way to explain this away.
26th Jun 2019
Child's Play (2019)
Other mistake: Andy and his friends are watching "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" in one scene. However, the scenes they watch are completely out of order compared to the actual film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually this is simply a movie convention. When kids watch films onscreen, they deliberately only show the best bits of the film as oppose to just playing the film normally. Otherwise it would look dull and pointless.
Explaining why a mistake exists doesn't invalidate them. Skipping time or jump cuts is one thing, showing scenes from a movie kids are watching out of order, without a valid in-film reason, is still a mistake.
Technically no.
The issue isn't that they aren't showing the whole movie. They did the right thing by just showing clips, since it illustrates a passage of time. The issue is that the clips they show are all out of order. (You'll see one from the ending of the movie, then one from the beginning, then another from the ending, then one from the middle, etc.) They could have just as easily shown a couple clips in order from throughout the film, and it would have worked, but they chose not to for some bizarre reason.
23rd Aug 2019
The Mummy (1999)
Question: What's the significance of the tattoo on the hands of the medjai? Not the medjai symbol but the 3 lines?
Answer: The tattoos they have are various symbols that mark them as Medjai. The sequel, "The Mummy Returns" confirms this.
Yes, I know, but the tattoos on the top of the hands are different from the one on the forehead and the cheeks. It makes me think of pyramids.
I believe it's just that seal of the Medjai. I don't think there's much significance beyond that.
14th Jul 2019
Tremors (1990)
Question: When Val and Earl first come into Perfection the sign says population 14. If you add up all the characters in the movie excluding Rhonda, there's 14 people. The question is who is taking care of Melvin?
Answer: According to one of the writers, his parents were both immature ne'er-do-wells who would often abandon him for long stretches of time. So he's pretty much on his own. Hence, his parents are not counted on the population sign, since they're barely there for him. It's also mentioned in the original script (which can be found online) that they spend a lot of their time in Las Vegas, presumably gambling. (Val says the line "Why don't his parents ever take him to Vegas with them?" in regards to Melvin in scene 13).
Answer: His Uncle Nestor.
To my knowledge, nothing in the film indicates Nestor is related to Melvin.
When Nester dies, Melvin lets the audience know that was his dad.
Um... no. No he doesn't. All he does when Nester dies is shout "No way, man! You guys have gotta do something!" to Val and Earl. He definitely never says Nester was his dad. As I said above, the writers have specifically said his parents were immature ne'er-do-wells who just aren't around most of the time. In fact, it's even mentioned in the original script that his parents were often away in Las Vegas rather than taking care of him.
12th May 2011
Silent Hill (2006)
Question: Anyone have any idea why Rose decided to try and outrun the police officer? It didn't appear Rose did anything illegal, so it seems she could have just waited to see why she was pulled over and then continue on her way.
Answer: It's illegal to enter Silent Hill and Rose knew the officer would try to stop her.
Why is it illegal to enter Silent Hill?
The air is toxic from the coal fires. Too much of a potential for people to get hurt or die by going in for too long.
29th Sep 2003
The Mummy Returns (2001)
Corrected entry: When the Medjai face the final onslaught of the Anubis' warriors, they keep their swords in a ready stance, but they don't move them even when the army hits them. That would be a perfect way to fight if they want their heads chopped off, since the swords would have no hitting power if swung from that stance. (01:54:45)
Correction: They WANT to get their heads chopped off. The entire army of Medjai barely fought off the first wave. The survivors give up and crave a quick death.
No, they don't want their heads to be chopped off. They literally say they're going to fight to the death right before. They just picked an odd battle stance. It'd be completely out of character and nonsensical for them to randomly just want to die suddenly out of nowhere.
25th Oct 2018
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
Question: After finishing the game, did Spencer, Fridge, Bethany, and Martha still have detention or did changing the timeline prevent them from their punishment?
Answer: They still had detention. The only thing that changed was Alex. But since they had become such close friends, detention would hardly be a punishment for them anymore.
It seemed like they just simply walked out of detention. I mean, did they finish their detention or did they have to continue on a Saturday?
The movie doesn't explain. But regardless, it also really doesn't matter.
They probably didn't go back on Saturday. When they go back to school, Spencer acts like he hasn't spoken to Martha since their adventure, while Bethany says she's been texting Martha 'all weekend'.
9th Oct 2018
Venom (2018)
Plot hole: The Riot symbiote inhabits the body of the paramedic immediately after the crash at the beginning, then goes into the body of an old woman who goes to the airport and proceeds to take control of a little girl who's going on a flight to San Fransisco. Riot then takes over Carlton Drake's body. The entirety of these events would need to have taken six months, for it to be consistent with the timeline of the rest of the film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Riot only arrives at the airport as the old woman after 6 months. There is no reason given why Riot decides to stay in the body of the woman for so long, but not giving a reason doesn't make it a plot hole. It stayed in the old woman for 6 months maybe because it needed to gather strength or devise a plan.
The director has even admitted it's a plot hole. Regardless, the film does nothing to suggest it was doing anything other than traveling towards its destination, so this does constitute a plot hole.
Why does it constitute as a plot hole if it's traveling towards its destination? Why does one thing imply the other?
It's a plot hole because it's absolutely ridiculous that it would take six full months to do that. That's a few days worth of activity... maybe a week. As I said, the director even admitted it was a plot-hole.
18th Aug 2018
The Shape of Water (2017)
Corrected entry: In the film it is advised that the creature be maintained at 5 - 8% salinity. The sea is only around 3.5%. It seems odd that he should need so much salt.
Correction: The film states he's not from the ocean. He's from a specific, presumably fictional, area of the Amazon where he was worshiped as a god. We can simply assume the area has water with a higher salinity level than ocean water. (As there are places around the world that have water with significantly higher salinity levels than ocean water).
Those bodies of water on the earth's surface with much higher salt content are invariably isolated lakes and inland seas that were formerly connected to the oceans in the distant past. Such high-salt lakes are the result of many millennia (even millions of years) of evaporation and reduction, which results in the nearby terrain becoming almost devoid of vegetation (due to the increasingly high alkalinity of the surrounding water table). So, you would expect to see near-desert-like conditions in the vicinity of isolated salt lakes and inland seas and virtually no large wildlife (except maybe migrating flamingos at certain times of the year). Point is, while there is evidence of "marine incursion" across the northern half of South America as far back as 14 million years ago (which did, in fact, produce the largest salt flats in the world at Uyuni, Bolivia), these salt lakes are very hostile and even toxic to complex life. Large animals, such as gill-people, simply couldn't have evolved there, with a saline content more than twice that of the ocean and virtually no food chain.
He's meant to be a river god, as confirmed by the director, who wrote: "It is a river God. It's not an animal. It's a river God in the Amazon. There was never another one." Therefore, it's entirely possible he survived in such a harsh environment and thrived.
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.
Correction: Clive Barker has stated that the first film takes place in the U.S., not in Britain (the original film was slightly re-dubbed to sound more "American"), and this film takes place shortly after, in the same general location. Hence, this is not a mistake- they are not in Britain.
TedStixon