Question: Maybe I missed some dialogue, but why exactly did Voller think the fissure they were flying towards would take him to his desired date in 1939? I get that the dial detects fissures in time, but why would he think that particular fissure was the one he needed to travel through?
Sammo
1st Jul 2023
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
Answer: We're supposed to accept that the dials are pointing to the rift in the sky, which is what makes this plot decision so ridiculous. There's no common reference point (magnetism wouldn't be discovered until and used in compasses for another 2,000 years), and the dial is 2-dimensional. Thus, you could turn your body 90 degrees and aim it down, and there's no indication from the movie that the dial would in any way turn to face the previous rift.
I think, technically, the fact that there's no common reference point is addressed when Voller mentions that the coordinates given are 'Alexandrine coordinates'... which I think might be another anachronism since all I can think it means is the ones used by Ptolemy in his Geography, which was hundreds of years after Archimedes' time. The dial is 2-dimensional, but there are 3 hands. It can be argued that when all 3 align, it does show that the direction you are headed is definitely correct, including the height you are pointing at. I definitely think it's entirely implausible, but the way the unknown mechanism works, attuned to something that does not exist such as time rifts, is kind of a lesser problem. Even if it is supposed to work by some mathematical principle, and then acts as some dowser rod.
Not true. The Chinese were using compasses around 200 BC, and Vikings are believed to have had them as well.
Answer: As they approach the rift, all three of the dial's hands are suddenly pointing towards it. If that is no clear indicator, then what is?
The dial pointing towards it only indicates that they are heading towards the fissure. How does that give Voller any certainty that this is the exact fissure he needs to travel through in order to reach his desired destination, especially considering it ended up not being the one he needed? Were there coordinates in Basil's diary that indicated where the exact fissure would open? I only recall the date of August 20 (?), 1939 being written down.
Only the time is written in the diary (the date you mention is next to August 20, 1969, which would be then supposedly when the finale of the movie takes place). For the coordinates, you need to have the device, which, apparently, allows you also to input with firsthand your desired destination. Voller couldn't know that to concoct his plan, though, since he did not have the diaries at the beginning of the movie.
28th Aug 2009
Scream (1996)
Question: Is it true that near the end of the movie, Skeet Ulrich really cries out in pain (not acting), because Neve Campbell accidentally hit him in an area where he was once injured in real life?
Answer: This is according to IMDb: When Sidney comes out of the closet and stabs Billy with an umbrella, the stunt man was supposed to hit a pad on Skeet Ulrich's chest. The first hit got the pad but the second one slipped and hit him in the chest (you can see it in his reaction). Wes Craven kept it in because of its authenticity.
Answer: Yes, confirmed by Wes Craven in the DVD commentary as well. Skeet Ulrich had open-heart surgery when he was 10 and there's a stainless steel wire in his chest that causes excruciating pain when touched. The stuntwoman was wearing the mask, which impairs vision quite a bit, and the second time around she really hit that sweet spot that caused the reaction you see in the movie.
15th Aug 2005
Scream (1996)
Question: What is that thing the killers (and Sydney) used for the Ghostface voice, and where can I get one of those?
Answer: Type "Scream voice changer" into a search engine.
Answer: You have to hire Roger Jackson. It's not like they used in this movie an actual voice changer.
5th Nov 2021
Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)
Question: What exactly happens to a host's body once the symbiote emerges? At the end of Venom, when Venom is threatening the robber, he partially opens his face, and we see Eddie's face. In this movie, when Cletus/Carnage is escaping from prison, guards start shooting at Carnage who then splits open his entire midsection but Cletus is nowhere to be seen.
Answer: The host and symbiote merge fully. So the symbiote can totally disappear into the host and the host can totally disappear into the symbiote. They can also split again, or partially, at will. It just depends on who gets to be the active version at that time.
I am not up to speed with recent Marvel canon, but in the comics it's never been that way? The symbiote can surely slink inside the host (especially Carnage in Kasady's blood), but the humans can't turn into shapeless goo. Comics aside, that sequence from the movie is mind-boggling; I can sorta explain it thinking the symbiote just tore Kasady's torso in half and then reattached it instantly (in other parts of the movie Eddie gets basically stabbed with what would be lethal wounds).
Actually, in the comics it's long been established that Carnage's healing factor is Deadpool-levels of broken. There are numerous moments where Carnage is impaled, crushed, decapitated, has his neck twisted, even grenades blowing up in his jaws and straight up nailed by military missiles... AND HE'S JUST FINE AND WALKS IT OFF LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED. He absolutely could casually tear himself open with no drawback whatsoever.
"Could" tear himself open, does he usually?"Can turn into shapeless goo", has he? One thing is to regenerate the torso, another thing is to manipulate your body parting before the bullets reach you.I don't really see that from the example posted, but my curiosity aside, given we're talking about the movie anyway, I really don't see Kasady depicted as a shapeshifter, and him and the symbiote in this movie are entirely separated at the end (pending a sequel of course).
Also, for Carnage specifically, the human absolutely can turn into shapeless goo. Makes sense, actually, given that the symbiote canonically merged into Kasady's own cells and microscopic DNA, something even Venom and its hosts can't replicate https://2.bp.blogspot.com/9DjIg5e1HwLrwx-lhLjXxlUqzici7xajVTQZMhEHW8a0X9BqdRFE4U6eaBuPKXJgb8zSxkTytpvh=s1600 so the "symbiote-opening-up-the-host-body-with-holes" being a Carnage specific thing isn't surprising at all, in fact, given it's the same body.
11th Feb 2010
Ghostbusters (1984)
Question: When Venkman is on the phone with Egon, he says that he shot Dana/Zuul up with 300 cc of Thorazine. Since Thorazine is a powerful anti-psychotic drug, it's unlikely that Dana had some in her medicine cabinet. If she didn't already have some on hand, then where did Venkman get it? He said that he has a PhD in psychology, so is he able to prescribe medications for anyone?
Answer: They're all three doctors in that field, so it's not unlikely at all that they could acquire the medication. The question then becomes: why did he have it on him at the time?
Indeed, it's hilarious when you ask yourself that question, and the movie does not have any of the characters question that! Which would have been comedy gold. As the original poster said though; Venkman has a PhD in Psychology, so he can't prescribe the drug, and the other 2 are physicists, so no, I wouldn't say they are doctors in the field?
A Psychologist could have studied medicine. If you have a medical licence you can prescribe medicine to a patient. This doesn't automatically make a Venkman a psychiatrist, but he is more likely more trained in the actual clinical practise. Doesn't make it less unethical though and if anyone finds out he would have his license revoked immediately.
10th Jul 2021
Black Widow (2021)
Question: At the end, General Ross' convoy is nearly to Natasha, intent on arresting her...then we cut to two weeks later, and she's about to embark on a prison breakout. Are we just meant to assume she escaped...somehow? Fought off everyone who was in those about 20 SUVs? Ran for it and somehow got away?
Chosen answer: It was done intentionally that way by the director to be left up to the viewer's imagination. Cate Shortland said "that was intentional, because we wanted to leave the question of how she would get away, rather than allow the audience to get exhausted by another fight." Of course, it's also possible that future films or TV shows will discuss/show her escape. Perhaps she negotiated her way out with information on the Red Dust.
I don't see why she didn't just leave with everyone else. There was no reason for her to stand there and wait. She could have flown off, as well. The convoy was cars, not planes.
Natasha activated her tracker which led Ross to her. The plan was to have Ross and his men arrest Dreykov, but basically things went sideways. Natasha stayed behind to hold Ross and his men off from pursuing the Widows. Presumably, had she left with them, Ross would still be able to track her and everyone would be in danger of being captured.
Until it is explained by one of those future shows, it really can be thought of as a plot hole. The interview, after the quoted bit, goes like this; "We wanted to leave you guys on a high with the question of how did she use her ingenuity? Because she did. And it was probably, I would say, she bargained her way out of that situation. But I don't know." So...the director says she does not know how the hell did she -really - escape that situation, just that she must have done something clever. Hilarious.
Leaving the how unanswered isn't a plot hole, even if writers or directors don't know the how. At best, it's an unexplained Deus ex machina. A plot hole is something that contradicts what's been established for the sake of the plot, but here, nothing was established.
I wouldn't say it's a DEM. Wikipedia; "Deus ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly and abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence."There is no occurrence here. Nothing that we (nor the director.) know of intervened between the two scenes.On the other hand,"Plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot." Natasha's situation is established and then ignored.
Which is why I said it was "unknown." An unknown occurrence happened that resolved the situation that wasn't illogical. However, I wouldn't correct you if you submitted a plot hole mistake, but others might since something not being explained isn't a plot hole.
Yes, sorry, I was splitting hairs as usual; I don't think a DEM can be "unexplained" in the sense of "unknown" because its whole point is that it is the narrative device that gives the story its twist; as absurd as it is (like a literal God appearing out of nowhere fixing things), it must be "something." Here there's nothing; we only have a statement of the director, movie-wise it's not even particularly implied that the resolution was peaceful, since Nat simply says she'll hold them off.
26th May 2020
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Question: How could the Allegiant General know for sure that General Hux was the spy? Was there something that revealed Hux?
Answer: He saw through the trick that Hux was pulling, being shot in a non-vital spot. He probably did not know 'for sure' but it's a scene that has the purpose to depict him as astute and ruthless. Let's say chances were very high that Hux was the spy (high ranking, with a disdain for the Supreme Leader, and now he conveniently lets the prisoner escape) and he had such disregard for human life that he had no second thoughts about a slim chance of murdering an innocent - and in best case scenario, incompetent - officer.
9th Feb 2010
Avatar (2009)
Question: Jake's paralyzed legs really look small and thin and weak. How did they make the actor's legs look like that, since he's not really paralyzed? Or did they edit a pair of fake legs in?
Chosen answer: It would have been done with digital effects.
6th Apr 2020
Knives Out (2019)
Question: How did blood drop reached Marta's shoes, even though it was too far from Christopher Plummer in the suicide scene? (00:53:50)
Answer: To add slightly to the other answer, evidently some of the blood in the scene had to be digitally removed for the film to secure a PG-13 rating, which explains why we don't see any actual spray/gush. But we are to assume that a drop managed to splash onto her shoe when he slit his throat.
Answer: The rationale is that blood can travel quite far from an artery and her shoe therefore got the droplet on it even from the doorway - however it does seem to me that the filmic portrayal is lacking, since you don't actually see any instance of spray. Rian Johnson' script says "Blood gushes." What we see in the scene is that it is trickling down his cut - a bit.
6th Mar 2020
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
The Veracity Elasticity - S10-E7
Answer: She wanted room for her own things. The apartment was cluttered with so many collectables that Leonard never looked at, that he never noticed when she put some in storage.
Well if they're a couple why not talk to him about it? After all couples are supposed to compromise on things, imagine if he'd done this to her.
12th Dec 2019
Knives Out (2019)
Question: In the flashbacks of Ransom storming out, it's different each time. The first time his Grandma speaks, the second time she's silent, and the third time she's holding cake, when she wasn't the other times. The flashbacks we see don't contradict each other, they're not really portrayed as coming from unreliable narrators, they're generally an honest portrayal of what happens, even when what they're telling the police isn't what we see happen. So why these minor, certainly deliberate, differences? Far as I'm aware it's the only time it happens too, not like there are lots of moments like this.
Chosen answer: She is holding cake all 3 times, actually, so the only difference is that the first time she speaks. It can be a case of unreliable narrator, but I'd write it down as a mistake (deliberate, probably, as the phrase is important for the plot and they didn't want to hammer it in), since as you said, the other times even when they tell things to the police in a different way from what happened, the details tend to stay consistent, except for parts that are obviously made up, such as who is putting down the birthday cake for Harlan Thrombey therefore appearing subservient and not as close (when Richard tells the story, it's Walt and his wife, when Walt tells the story it is Richard and his wife).
Answer: Each time, it is being described by a different person. Maybe not all heard her speak.
27th Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
Question: Why does Arthur kill his mother? Does he feel she lied to him about his father? Maybe his madness going further? Perhaps even he wanted to end her suffering?
Answer: I'd probably rule out of the last reason you mentioned, on the first one you have to consider that the lie goes deeper than just the father's identity, if that is a lie at all. Through the information he saw on the medical record - and he kills her after seeing that record - it turns out that she had let him be abused and beaten up since a tender age, which would probably be the cause of his mental and physical issues. In his line before the murder, he mentions her full name, and how he has not been happy a minute of his whole life, so the terrible childhood, which maybe now came back to him, is a real factor. Mentioning the comedy, so a play, might also imply a sort of detachment now that he understands that it was all a lie from the beginning and she's not even his real mother (if that's what he believes).
8th Aug 2005
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Question: How did Lecter know that there was something inserted into Fredrica Bimmels' throat? He had heard about Buffalo Bill in the papers but not much information about him.
Answer: Because he knew that the dead man in the storage unit had one in his throat. He guessed that Buffalo Bill was the former patient of his who had killed the dead man in the storage unit.
10th Feb 2020
Birds of Prey (2020)
12th Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
Question: My question's twofold: 1. Why does he do that dance down the stairs, for fun maybe? 2. When he speaks about comedy being subjective is this a knock on modern comedians and their controversial jokes and skits?
Answer: 1 - Why does he dance a bunch of times in the movie? It's kinda his thing! You can see that Murray himself does little goofy dances all the time during his show and Arthur sorta seems to have taken that trait from him. 2 - I have heard that "comedy is subjective" for years and years. It is sort of a truism but it does fit, some people like a certain kind of humor that can fall completely flat for others. I am not sure if you should read some specificity about it in this movie, except for the fact that obviously he's using it to justify his own actions to the point of considering 'funny' to commit murder in the context of the perspective change when he starts considering his tragic life a whole big joke with no punchline. I don't really see in this movie a satire of show business or shock comedy, since it seems to focus on other themes (mental illness, emargination, etcetera).
Answer: 1. It's supposed to be a highly emotional moment for him, the first time he takes control of his own life. He basically celebrates that. 2. I think he is referring to Murray, or at least something in-universe. This is all of course speculative.
12th Oct 2019
Joker (2019)
Question: Does Arthur kill Sophie when he realises he's hallucinated their relationship? I know there may not be a concrete answer to this.
Answer: Yeah it's completely up to the viewer to believe he killed her or not. I don't think he did, he liked her, just like Gary. I think he visited to see if it was all in his head, with that confirmed he just left.
Answer: Todd Philips actually answered this in an interview on IndieWire; "As the filmmaker and the writer I am saying he doesn't kill her. We like the idea that it's almost like a litmus test for the audience to say, 'How crazy is he?' Most people that I've spoken to think he didn't kill her because they understand the idea that he only kills people that did him wrong. She had nothing to do with it. Most people understood that, even as a villain, he was living by a certain code. Of course he didn't kill this woman down the hall."
22nd Jan 2005
Taxi Driver (1976)
Question: Is there an official explanation to the ending of the movie? Some people say that it was Travis's dream sequence, and others say it was Travis going back to his manic depressive self again. What caused Travis to get so startled when he was looking at the rear vision mirror? Did Scorsese deliberately make the ending very vague or is there supposed to be an explanation to the ending?
Answer: This is just my opinion. Remember Iris's line "Have you ever tried looking at your own eyeballs in the mirror?" or something to that effect. Well, Travis sees the madness reflected in his own eyes, doesn't like what he sees (as it reminds him of what he has done, what he might yet do).
Answer: There is. Both Scorsese (in the audio commentary) and screenwriter Paul Schrader in multiple interviews establish that the ending is not to be taken as a dream sequence or anything of the sort. I love the previous answer, by the way, it does nail what has also been stated; while Travis survived this time, it's very likely there will be a next.
10th Jan 2020
General questions
Which movie has the least amount of mistakes on this site?
Answer: Trouble is the database here has a LOT of films which have 0 mistakes (over 2000). But that of course doesn't mean they don't have any mistakes, just that nobody's submitted any yet. :-) And plenty of those are somewhat obscure titles which someone might have submitted a quote for or asked a question for. That said, a few mainstream titles leap out, based on the number of people who've visited the pages recently but the film *still* has no mistakes: Early Man, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2, Sleuth (2007), Rashomon, I Love You Man, Super Troopers 2, Black Water, Logan Lucky, The Lighthouse, Margin Call, Ghost in the Shell (2017), Hard Candy, The Babadook, Detective Pikachu, Six Degrees of Separation. And many others! But if anyone wants to start mistake hunting in those movies, go for it.
Answer: Just to expand on my answer, not counting short films and documentaries, it is estimated that there are over 500,000 feature-length movies in existence. For it to be determined which film has the least amount of mistakes, every film would have to be closely analyzed. Continuity mistakes are the most common and unavoidable type of mistake, and even older and extremely popular movies such as "Star Wars" still have newer continuity mistakes being discovered even to this day.
Answer: The movie with the least amount of mistakes? Easy, any movie with 0 mistakes! Can't have less than that. So, any movie not yet on this website is automatically 'the movie with the least amount of mistakes', until proven differently! I am kinda being facetious of course. This question is generally posed as "is there a perfect movie / a movie with no mistakes?" I think it's safe to say that the more complex a movie is, the more likely it is to have mistakes. Especially in term of editing, as the so called continuity mistakes are almost inevitable. I remember in particular a movie from Greek cinematographer Theo Angelopoulos, "The Suspended Step of the Stork." Angelopulous had a filming style based on long continuous shots, and he was extremely precise. Plus the movie was mostly shot in landscapes.The only mistake I ever found in that movie was simply a translation error in hard captions, so not really the cinematographer's fault. Hope you can find a 'perfect' movie too.
24th Dec 2019
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)
Question: I remember seeing a scene at Clark's boss' house with lots of people having a big party when Cousin Eddie shows up to kidnap him. What happened to that scene in the version I bought on DVD?
Answer: Are you sure it was this movie? The boss was in his jammies when he was kidnapped and his wife was alone when she called the police.
This does seem unlikely. Having him abducted from a party would change the entire end of the film. As you say, he's in his pajamas, which would make no sense.
21st Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Question: If Palpatine wanted Rey alive, as he says to her on Exegol, why did he repeatedly order Kylo to kill her earlier in the movie?
Answer: Palpatine has been manipulating Rey and Kylo Ren from the very start, bringing the pair together and instigating fights between them. He is trying to make Rey stronger so that when he takes over her body, she will be powerful. Palpatine can partially see the future and knows that Kylo will not be successful in actually killing Rey, but that their constant fights will cause the two to grow more powerful. Because he can see part of the future, he knows that eventually Rey will triumph over Kylo and "kill" him, and then come to confront him directly. He doesn't count on Ben Solo coming back to face him which winds up being his undoing.
Answer: Not just earlier in the movie, but in the trilogy itself since he is technically also behind Snoke. Yeah I wondered the same. For that matter, why does he not clue her in of his whereabouts but just hopes (what a very Jedi thing to do!) she'll just find the thing that leads it to him? Feels like a plot hole but I didn't bother sending it because I am sure some answer for it will come in the expanded universe or whatever. Of course one could just say it's the Sith way and if Kylo managed to kill her it would completely erase the very last Jedi and erase anything good remaining in Kylo, making the victory of the Dark Side complete. And likewise, if Rey kills him (which she does, in a way!) that will make the Dark Side in her stronger. Curious enough, notice how Kylo wants them both to go to Palpatine, to kill him, instead, so Palpatine's order is meant to make him do something he does not want to.
Answer: Emperor Palpatine is a lying bastard. Earlier he wanted her dead because he feared her power. Now that she's actually showed up in the flesh he's trying to flatter her to convince her to join with him (literally in this case). The Emperor is the Star Wars version of Satan/Lucifer; his word is worth less than nothing.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: There is a bit of dialogue en route to the airport when Voller sets the instrument that says, "the first hand sets the destination," as in the time you want to travel back to. This would make the device completely absurd in principle if true (that's why I wanted to mark it as a plot hole/stupidity). Since it's supposed not to open portals but just detect them, it can't be that there are infinite portals for every moment in time you can choose to go back to (and they even close). The sky, while vast, is not infinite. We then find out that it is a trick since it is set to actually bring you to just one destination, but they don't know it yet.
Sammo ★