Plot hole: There is a pivotal moment when Duke poolside casually says; "remember that night when..." That is a mighty strange way for him to mention the very last time the two met, barely two weeks earlier. Miles was not even supposed to be in the country, but Duke, who later jumps straight to casual blackmail once he gets the Google alert about Andi, never mentions that to Miles before or since. Miles cut him off pretending he meant "Anderson Cooper", but for the rest of the movie he struggles and has no leverage on Miles to the point that he pimps his girlfriend out to him. Furthermore, he mentioned the "pancaking" to the other friends, but somehow never mentioned it was Miles. If he was not going to take advantage of that, then he had no reason at all to keep the secret, especially with the lot of them hanging out for an hour waiting at Andi's door. Anyone would have mentioned the fact already back then, or if they realised it was important, would have already started to use it.
Sammo
9th Jan 2023
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022)
Suggested correction: When Duke says "remember that night," he doesn't know that Andi is dead. At this point, he thinks Miles went to Andi's house (just as they all did) and didn't go in. Miles has reason to cut him short, though. Attempted murder is also a crime.
I can't stress enough how absurd it is that he'd tell his friends and co-conspirators that he nearly had an accident without mentioning WHO with. They are banging at the door of Andi without a clue for ages, over a matter that has Miles at the center of everything. That's not how human interactions work. They all are outside her house, and he does not mention the identity of the person responsible for the accident? Again, one could only withhold information like this if there is a purpose.
Feel free to file this one under another mistake entry.
9th Jan 2023
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022)
Stupidity: Of course, it's a movie with a heavy comedic tone and it's a rather cathartic scene, but still it's worth noting that Benoit Blanc had no way to know that making the whole HOUSE (full of glass shrapnel, too) explode wouldn't gravely injure or kill anyone. What a ruthless fellow.
Suggested correction: The scene at point 2:06:02 suggests the opposite. Blanc knew the house would explode violently, hoped everyone would get injured, and sat watching it while helping himself and Derol to a cigar. Bron was guilty of two counts of first-degree murder. The remainder were accessories to the crime, having already pledged to perjure themselves. Their sentence would be death if it were not for their destruction of evidence. So, all Blanc needed was a sense of justice, not ruthlessness.
Helen, the innocent sister of the original murder, is in the building too. I wouldn't want to say that he hoped *everyone* would get injured, just the bad guys but that's the point. It's simply a case of an absurd decision that puts to mortal risk everyone but has no negative consequences "because movie."
9th Jan 2023
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022)
Plot hole: Benoit Blanc ruins on purpose the murder dinner party because, allegedly, someone is really trying to kill Miles, and he wants to warn him that it's not a game. But as we know later, Blanc is actually trying to investigate the murder of Andi Brand and he does not really think that Miles Bron is in danger. In fact he is positively convinced that everyone has motives to kill in order to protect Miles and all he wants to be on the island for is to gather clues and investigate. Cutting the game short does not serve his purpose at all, in fact it defeats it. Had he played along, both Helen and him would have had a perfect excuse to investigate. In fact it is a miracle that nobody went back to their rooms right away after that tense moment, instead of being busy with the opening investigation; you even see that they are groaning and complaining and want to leave. The movie explains away most of the other details but none about this.
Suggested correction: Blanc knew he couldn't hide Helen's identity for long. He said so at 1:15:15. His fear was justified when Duke discovered Helen's identity on the night of her arrival. In short, Blanc and Helen were on a clock.
Regardless of how little time they had left (Blanc estimated "another week", so the leak happens presumably earlier than he anticipated), ruining the dinner does not serve the purpose; gives "Andi" less time to search the rooms, which is what Blanc planned her to do.
If the game was allowed to proceed, Helen would have been forced to play along. Any behavior, other than playing along, would have been suspicious.
9th Jan 2023
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022)
Stupidity: The Disruptors have been close friends for well over a decade, and one of the other guests is Duke's girlfriend who has been living with him for at the very least one year (she was at the previous meeting). Yet nobody seems to have the slightest suspicion or recollection about his pineapple allergy, so lethal that it kills him in a few seconds, even more amazing considering that the favourite drink of one of those drinking buddies of his (who is sitting on his lap in one of the flashbacks) is exactly what would kill him; the topic of contamination surely must have been touched upon. (01:00:00)
Suggested correction: The disruptors were never close friends. According to 1:19:50, they were Andi's "pack." Andi discovered their potential in 2010 because she was an entrepreneur. They were so unfaithful to Andi that they had no qualms perjuring themselves in the Brand v. Bron case. At 1:27:07, Whiskey describes the group's relationship as fake. She says the group's gatherings are "the worst." The only things each of the Disruptors ever cared for was Bron's "golden titties."
Is the correction just about the usage of the adjective "close" on my part? I mean, fair, but I don't see how that changes the absurdity of the fact that these people (the victim's girlfriend and his "pack", "friends", "group", etc.) who have been hanging out at the bar, shown drinking together and established knowing each other for years and years, somehow are oblivious to the violent allergy of this person - something Duke himself is not secretive about and that they know would kill him with just a drop. It's the typical unrealistic dumbing down/forgetfulness of whoever in a wuddunit is not the main character (hence a stupidity, never painted it as a plot hole).
I get it. You say it is stupid that a group of friends know each other so poorly. I'm saying they were never friends. They cared for their own benefits. Hence, they never sought to know each other, let alone care.
22nd Sep 2023
A Haunting in Venice (2023)
Factual error: Poirot attends a Halloween party in Venice in 1947. Halloween was never publicly recognized as a holiday in Venice or Italy in general in the XX century, especially with the traditional pumpkin-centered iconography. One could argue that, for the most part, Poirot is attending a private party organized by an American soprano. But, besides how unlikely it would be for 1947 Catholic nuns to take part in such a pagan-themed event, there are scenes showing Halloween decorations in the streets of Venice far away from the party location, as if it were a public holiday and not a private gathering from an eccentric foreigner.
Suggested correction: Besides what Oliver says to Poirot in the beginning about Americans bringing over Halloween to Italy, it's not true. Halloween has a European and Christian origin. A day called All Hallow's Day on November 1st has been a national holiday in Italy since the 9th century. There have always been activities in Italy the evening prior to All Hallow's day. This includes games, themes of death, carved pumpkins (turnips before), and masks ("guising"), all of which are very old traditions done all over Europe.
Being Italian and having lived in Italy for the past decades, may not make me an authority over all things Italian, but I can assure you that Ognissanti (which is what you quote as being "All Hallow's Day," since we obviously haven't been borrowing English names for our festivities) has never been observed as a national holiday with anything remotely close to what is shown here, which is, like Ariadne Oliver says, plain and simple Halloween. Like I said in the entry, it'd be perfectly fine for Americans to celebrate it, but no pumpkin banners in the public streets and parades with people shouting "Happy Halloween!" with nuns in full garb, no less! Halloween has never been celebrated here with any mainstream fanfare until the very, very recent years.
2nd Aug 2023
Secret Invasion (2023)
Plot hole: The Skrull base is inside an abandoned nuclear power plant with enough radioactivity to force any human (like, say, Nick Fury) to constantly pop iodine pills to fight the symptoms of a poisoning that would kill them in less than half an hour. Despite that, Skrulls also detain prisoners, for years in some cases, in rudimentary shackles without any sort of shield or protection against the radiation.
Suggested correction: Iodine pills don't fight the symptoms of radiation poisoning; they prevent the body from absorbing radioactive iodine. It does not protect from exposure to radiation; it won't save you from it. Secondly, it's all an act by Gi'Ah posing as Fury anyway. Thirdly, they are in the reactor control room where Gravik says the radiation is higher. The prisoners are in a low radiation room, which could be extra shielded from radiation. It could also be that the prisoners are fed iodine to block radioactive iodine.
We can make up if we want that there's a special, super-secret anti-radiation serum and/or super-effective shielding, helping humans even during an exposure that lasts years (a decade in the case of Rhodey!), but there has to be something in the actual visuals that remotely hints at it. It's hard to headcanon that the dingy area of the plant where they are racked together, strapped to bed nets behind tarps, can be "low radiation", or that they are given anything to counter it. In particular, in the ending, the rescued people leisurely walk around the plant with zero radiation protection, even casually in the open yard where "Fury's" Geiger counter was going mad earlier. And the radiation was not something induced by the Skrulls that just ended when the baddie died. Not only is there no techno-babble justification (one could argue it's simply a pedantic detail not unlike the lack of hair growth or muscle atrophy), there's a direct flagrant contradiction in how the environment of the location - which is the only reason why they picked that site as a base - is deadly to humans only to a dramatic degree only when it's convenient.
1st Jul 2023
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
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?
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.
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.
19th Feb 2022
Scream (1996)
Revealing mistake: Sidney is teasing Billy, and as a sort-of-reward to him she flashes him before he goes. That's the idea, but in the view from behind you can actually see through the nightie the shoulderstrap of a bra. (00:16:55)
Suggested correction: Could she have had a bra that undoes at the front and quickly flashed him?
To actually answer the question; her hand is on full display, holding the nightie open. She'd still have to open the bra. You can technically argue that you can't see her other hand, which she could be simultaneously maneuver to pull down the cup of the bra and expose a nipple, since there's hardly any time to undo it fully and she'd have to fasten it back afterwards. Or that cupless bras exist. Truth is, she opens her casual, normal, comfy nightwear during the unexpected visit of her boyfriend, and the way the scene is shot leaves no room to interpretation.
This is a question, not a correction.
16th Nov 2022
Dark Glasses (2022)
Stupidity: The police inspector leaves her calling card, not written in Braille, to the blind protagonist, asking her to call her in the next hours if she finds something out. She knows she lives alone. The scene is played unironically.
Suggested correction: There are devices that blind people use to read print to them, so they don't have to rely on everything being in Braille.
I am sure, but they show the 'training' she receives from Asia Argento in the couple of previous days, the only device being a phone that accepts verbal commands, and at no point she is shown reading anything or being introduced to the possibility of doing so, they spend time on that. The calling card is then used for a plot twist later, but it makes no sense that the thoughtful cop would give to a blind person without even asking if she can use it or giving the slight non-verbal hint that it was a blunder or problem.
18th Jun 2022
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
Two of One - S2-E6
Stupidity: Adam Soong's daughter is a grown woman who is well aware of her unique critical condition and the outside world, and is homebound because of her health condition that prevents her from being exposed to direct sunlight and pathogens. Apparently, with all the free time she has and awareness and investment in her father's researches who are all about her, she never ever looked at her father's computer (which has all the info about her story right there on the desktop) nor googled him before.
Suggested correction: I'm sorry, but what reason would she have to look at her father's computer or google him prior to becoming suspicious of him? Yes, the information about the experiments is laughably easy to find but that doesn't mean it's stupid that she hasn't stumbled upon it yet. She never looked because she trusted her father. She doesn't have a reason not to, she isn't privy to his shady actions like the audience. It doesn't seem unreasonable that someone who is so isolated from society might be naïve.
If she were a pure innocent soul isolated from society in an absolute sense, yes, but if you look at episode 4, she is aware that he is being audited, and she even jokes about the line he actually used "Humanity is at a crossroad" implying it's a bad line that he used before and that, besides being a huge red flag about the unethical experiments she is totally unaware of a couple episodes later, there is contention about what he is doing. If your dad were implied in some public auditing the outcome of which your very life depends on, I think you'd peek at the media coverage. Even worse for the computer, with the data easily accessible from the desktop, in video format - she's home all day and yet she never ever in a lifetime peeked what her dad was up to, which is, and she is aware of that much, finalized to save her life.
7th Jun 2022
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
Stupidity: From a remote location, Kore deletes her father's research data from his computer, defeating him. So Adam Soong in a few decades of work as a geneticist, apparently never once backed his work up or kept a hard copy of it. (00:20:05)
Suggested correction: The question is left unanswered. We simply do not know if he did. Or when was the last time he did a backup. If she did a system-wide purge. Or if she got to that too.
There's no question waiting for answers about it, is there? Quite the opposite, the scene is very straightforward and would be entirely pointless if he had a backup to salvage (which would be a terrible backup if it could be wiped out remotely), and his reaction does not imply anything of the sort - she knows that she is completely destroying his work with a handwave (work she didn't even know about until hours earlier) and she is right, because he's a defeated man that turns to a very different project entirely because of her action. It's simply an oversimplification/trivialization of how research (and computers in general) work in movies.
19th May 2004
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Encounter at Farpoint (1) - S1-E1
Corrected entry: When the computer instructs Riker to turn right, he turns to the left.
Correction: While it is true that the computer said right rather than left, Riker turned around in the intersection facing the way he came, so the hatch was on his right. It seems thought the computer gave directions a beat before he turned, but the result is the same.
The result may be the same, but the original entry is (I should use another word maybe) right. As the correction itself says, the computer says the word "Right", and does it while Riker is walking down the corridor. There is no way it would predict that Riker then would stop after the instruction has been issued and face another direction, and at the point where he stops, the hatchway is not directly to his right, but rather behind him so he has to turn, walk a few steps, still to his left. Sure turning 270° right can produce the same result as turning 90° left, but I wouldn't say is correct.
20th May 2022
Treasure of Nadia
Character mistake: The first time that Diana mentions the mysterious civilization that produced the 'treasure', she mentions that "They survived in isolation until the 1500's." It's a plural, 1500s, no apostrophe.
Suggested correction: Both versions are acceptable depending what style guide someone chooses to follow. Anyone saying different is just stating an opinion (well, until all style guides decide to follow one rule). It's similar to plural letters, as in "mind your p's and q's."
28th Aug 2009
Trancers (1985)
Corrected entry: Jack Deth is in the past and driving a vintage car. Although he is driving in a straight line as he talks to the girl, he is swinging the wheel wildly from side to side.
Correction: Vintage cars often had a lot of play in the suspension which causes a person to make frequent corrections to keep it in a straight line. I had a 1965 car, with manual steering, that had a lot of side to side movement to keep it in line. Higher speeds meant more movements to keep it straight. This was in a car with a good, aligned front end, in a poorly aligned car, the movement is even more exaggerated.
I think the correction was posted without watching the actual scene (s), because I'd say it is evident that he's not driving a real car and he's doing the old style "Look at me, I am totally driving this car" wheel turn that does not match to the slightest any car movement he'd have to correct.
1st Apr 2022
Ghostbusters (1984)
Character mistake: Meeting Dana at the Lincoln Center fountain, Venkman tells her that Gozer was a deity worshipped in 6,000 BC by Hittites, Mesopotamians and Sumerians. There are no historical accounts of those specific populations dating back to that ancient of a date, or writing of any form for that matter. (00:43:40)
Suggested correction: Venkman said Mesopotamians, not Babylonians. The Mesopotamian civilization existed in 6500 BC so his information would be accurate in that aspect.
You are absolutely right, I have misquoted the movie there and I just fixed it thanks to your correction. "Mesopotamians" is just a generic denomination, though, so saying that Gozer would be worshipped by the Hittites in 6000 BC, and then list a generic name for the inhabitants of the area and then the Sumerians (generally accepted as the first organized civilization of the area, still much after the proposed date) doesn't seem to be quite accurate.
A valid point of view from both of you, however, it's established that Dr. Venkman is the least knowledgeable in paranormal history so it's possible he listed the groups out of order. As is rightly pointed out, Mesopotamia was a generic listing, like saying Americans, so maybe if he said Mesopotamians first, then the other groups, the quote would make sense?
I completely agree that he's the least knowledgeable of the bunch by far and it is well-established and reinforced in the same scene since he needs Dana's help to read "Hittites." Read, because he's not quoting from memory; he's reading (presumably something Egon or Ray had to write down for him). As you say, "if" he said Mesopotamians first, maybe it would have made sense (but it's not what he says), and even then, using your example, saying "in 1000 BC, Manitou was worshipped by the Sioux, the Americans and the Apache" just sounds wrong. (I know that by 'Americans' we mean generally the US population and feel free to add 'native' to it, then again Hittites established their civilization when the Sumerians were wiped out already, and that's 4 millennia past the date - it is what happens making a word salad in a small sentence that has to register just superficially for the audience).
17th Feb 2004
Death on the Nile (1978)
Plot hole: According to the denouement sequence shown in the film, Linnet Ridgeway is shot asleep in her bed approximately three minutes after retreating from the lounge. Less than 2.5 minutes pass from the moment Linnet leaves the lounge to the moment when Doyle is left alone by the other guests. It takes another 30 to 45 seconds for him to pick up the pistol, rush into his cabin and kill his sleeping wife. How could Linnet have walked to her cabin, taken off her jewelry, changed into her night-dress, retired to bed, and fallen asleep in 180 seconds? (00:59:00)
Suggested correction: The sequence never showed when Linnet goes to sleep. We can't be sure how long it is between her leaving and Simon shooting. All we know is in the actual scene she leaves after having already taken a sleeping pill. This is "movie time", not real time. 3 mins can be 30 mins in movie time. The flashback sequence doesn't clarify anything based on her timeline.
This...is not at all what happens. This is the 1978 movie; Linnet is playing cards with the others up until a moment before cutting the game short not by her choice but because of Jackie's interference, so certainly took no pill in advance nor does she take one on screen, and the characters interact with no interruption from that point on leaving no room for an implied 'movie time' elapsing at a significantly slower rate than 'real' time.
28th Sep 2016
The Nice Guys (2016)
Corrected entry: Holland tells Janet to "Call 911". It is supposed to be 1977 and the first city in California to implement 911 service was San Diego in 1980.
Correction: The first city in California to implement the 9-1-1 system was Gustine, in March 1970, and by 1972, the 9-1-1 system was installed countywide. In 1972, Assembly Bill 515 was passed, mandating that 9-1-1 be implemented statewide. Although it took until 1985 to be statewide, 9-1-1 services were available in 1977.
First and foremost, I can't express enough admiration for the precision. That being said, you do say that it wasn't implemented statewide until 1985, and in fact a quick googling returns reputable sources such as a 1985 article from the LA Times that says that it was implemented in the city only in October 1984. Overall, isn't it fair to say then that in 1977 two Los Angels kids wouldn't just say "call 911" like we do today? I think the entry needs radical rewriting or flat-out reposting, but overall there is some merit.
3rd Feb 2022
Scream (2022)
Corrected entry: It's said that Sidney appeared in every "Stab" movie except Stab 8 - but in Scream 4, Jenny says that Sid only appeared in the first three.
Correction: That isn't what Jenny says. Marnie says: "That has nothing to do with Woodsboro. I-I thought you said "Stab" was based on true stories." Jenny Randall: "The first three, The original trilogy is based off Sidney Prescott, but then she threatened to sue them if they used her stories. So they just started making stuff up. Stab 5 has time travel, which is by far the worst." She never said the movies didn't have Sidney in them after the first three, just they aren't based on true stories.
I don't think there is a leap in logic in the original post; she threatened to sue the production if they used her story, I can't see how they would avoid a lawsuit by exploiting her character further by putting her in more movies? If it's not a retcon, it's at best a rather problematic line.
Once a film has put a character name into existence and been released, the studio owns the copyright to that name. Sidney Prescott as a character could still be used in Stab films.
For that matter, you can always argue that a person does not own the story of her own life to begin with, that's not the point. The point is that since it was stated that they were afraid of the legal action Sidney Prescott threatened, and changed course to the saga for that reason, they would -not - put Sidney Prescott in other, even more outrageous and exploitative, material.
I'm not trying to be rude, but I can tell that you do not know anything at all about copyright law. The above user was correct. You don't know in what context Sidney was used in the following Stab films. The only thing we know about those later films is the very brief description of time travel in Stab 5, and the two fake outs from Stab 6&7.
No offense taken at all, it's true! I am no lawyer and I wasn't trying to get in the intricacies of copyright law and rights of publicity. I am just saying that the movie (previous movie, from 10 years before, in an obscure line of dialogue easily retconned or forgotten...) mentions that Sidney threatened them with a lawsuit, there's no reason why they'd stir her putting her even in cameos multiple times in their every third rate following schlocky flicks. It's simple as that. Would they win a lawsuit, on the grounds of what you (or the other poster) mentioned? Sure, but they never said she did sue them, the point was for the studio to avoid that sort of legal trouble entirely.
I think we're looking at the difference between a mistake and a criticism with this one. I agree that in Scream 4 the most reasonable interpretation is that Sidney successfully got (at the least) her name removed from Stab 4 onward (especially since without any further "true" events to draw from they would've had to start making things up anyhow). But the line can be taken other ways, and even if it's a stretch or goes against the spirit the line was written in, it's different from a mistake.
It still leaves a plot hole of why Sidney threatened to sue. If not for likeness / appearance, then for what?
27th Aug 2001
Scream 3 (2000)
Corrected entry: In the beginning of the final scene where Sydney tries to escape from the disguised murderer she runs into the library. In this room Sydney is looking for the hidden entrance behind the bookshelves. As she recognises a bright light underneath one of these shelves she knows which door to open. As she finally enters that room the bright light suddenly disappeared. The room is as dark as a coal chamber.
Correction: The room not only has a bright projection screen running, but many candles, it is not as black as a coal chamber.
25th May 2010
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Corrected entry: I have to post this to refute the comment that denied the existence of an alternate ending. I was overjoyed to find a comment here from someone else who remembered seeing a different ending just one time in the 1960s. I've spent my whole life trying to find someone else who remembered this. In the 1960s the annual broadcast of the film had hosts. I, and two of my friends, ever since childhood always remembered that one year the movie had a different ending. I've always sensed it was the year that the hosts were Liza Minnelli and Lorna and Joey Luft. We never could remember what the different ending was, but we recalled that it was black and white and that our reaction was: It wasn't just a dream that time. Now that I've read this other person's memory of the camera's panning to the ruby slippers under the bed, in black and white, I remember that's what I saw. Another commenter says that there's no evidence that the scene ever existed. I am here to verify that someone else has never stopped wondering for over 40 years about a vague memory of a different ending from one airing in the 1960s.
Correction: https://criticsrant.com/mythbusters-dorothys-ruby-slippers/ This website gives some confirmation, it's one of those myths that get mixed up in people's memories to being convinced they have seen it. The WoZ original footage has been carefully preserved, it's not lost, if this footage made it to the final film for view; somebody would have posted it by now as the footage would still exist somewhere. It's possible you saw a skit or parody though that you mistook for the actual film. That would make sense.
Correction: This is called the "Mandela Effect" (aka 'collective false memory').
It's not a false memory, when I have never forgotten that night, only to find that someone else also remembered it. We may all be connected by our subconscious, but that's going a bit too far. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
But the nature of a collective false memory means just because two people remember something happening, doesn't mean it did! :-).
It's also possible you saw a parody or a different adaption of WoZ one time and it mixed up in your memory as being a part of the 1939 movie. There is no evidence of this ending ever being in the 1939 version. It's not in the script, there is no surviving imagery of it, and no other record of it whether through cast/crew memories or having been noted as a cut scene. Since we do have records of cut/altered scenes from WoZ, more than likely there would be record of this ending somewhere.
That's the exact definition of The Mandela Effect...multiple people having the same memory of something, even though it never happened. There are people who swear that the line in "Snow White" is "Mirror, mirror on the wall," when in fact it is, "Magic mirror on the wall." Just as there are people who are absolutely convinced that Sinbad was in a movie called "Shazaam."
I also remember this ending and it has driven me crazy over the years! I would stake my life on seeing the slippers under her bed. You are not alone, and I am glad I am not either.
Correction: I do remember seeing a different ending where the camera pans down and slippers are under the bed after Dorothy says, "there's no place like home." I saw it in the 80's at a classmates house, we were watching a rented VHS of the film at her birthday party. I even remember her mother saying she had never seen that part before.
Hi everyone, I would also like to include that I too, in the '60s, saw The Wizard of Oz with the ruby slippers under the bed. I told people for years about this, and no one else could remember the ending. So, I decided since we have the internet today, I would see if anyone else saw this alternative ending and am pleased to see that you have.
Correction: Have you ever watched the 1925 "Wizard of Oz" film? I haven't watched it and I don't know its history of being aired on TV. But it was shot in B&W and perhaps that's the version you watched (I'm not claiming it is or isn't though).
I'd say it can't be, if you peek at it (it's available on Youtube), the ending is completely different and wouldn't fit. Fascinating discussion, anyway! To the original poster; nobody means to disparage your memory, in fact we're trying to come up with possible explanations; it's pretty certain though that it can't be an official alternate ending, because we're talking about one of the most iconic and analyzed movies ever. Now it's all about figuring out what sort of clip did they play during that TV broadcast you seem to remember. And there's a gigantic wikipedia page just about the telecast alone. Perhaps it was a wraparound credits sequence?
It's not a pseudo memory at all. I remembered the same thing from the late sixties and have tried to find out for decades why it was just the one year as well and I saw it and remembered it before I ever saw others were trying to find out about it. Very strange but I have to agree that there should be a lot more people that remember it. I'm watching the movie again now and the memory came back again. When I searched I just now saw that others DO remember that different ending.
Thank you. I appreciate your saying that you're not trying to disparage my memory, but that is exactly what the responders are doing. Instead of trying to come up with explanations, maybe people should accept that they cannot prove a negative, and that just because they don't recall it and can't find a record doesn't mean I'm wrong. I don't want to keep repeating myself, I know what I saw, and my best friend (whom I did not meet until several years after) remembers it too.
No. I've never seen it.
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.