Factual error: When Jackie pulls out the unusually high amount of cash that Simon happened to have on him, you can read the banknote was issued in 1940. The movie is set in the 1930s. (02:08:40)
Sammo
24th Feb 2022
Death on the Nile (1978)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: 1) The shot is onscreen for a fraction of a second. 2) Even using freeze-frame, I do not see any visible date. Do you have a screen capture of this?
I did not, but I took one for you.;). I just uploaded a zoomed-in and straightened version you prolly can already see in the pending screenshots section. It says "Juin 1940", but you shouldn't need it; the note is on screen for a full second or slightly less, but the fact that allows you to read it without even pausing is that she holds the note straight, her motion stops just long enough to avoid stealing the moment with freeze-frame (in fact if you take screenshots on VLC like I do, the compression might make it harder to read than watching it in real time). And also pre-WW2 1000 Franc notes have a huge date, I circled it for you in the screenshot. You can also notice the signature of the "caissier general" that matches notes post-summer of 1937 at earliest, and the only date given in the movie is 1930. Serial numbers are consistent with a 1940 release as well, they definitely used a legit banknote from the era who happened to be a late print.
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.
22nd Mar 2016
Death on the Nile (1978)
Plot hole: Simon wasn't shot at the time everyone thinks - he shoots himself after killing his wife - so how did he get all that sweat, in his forehead, through his hair? It was all over him.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He'd just been running around the boat, and he'd just killed his wife. That'd make anyone sweat.
What the OP says is that he's already sweaty before he does any of that; if you look at the first scene when he's tricking the others, and in Poirot's flashback during the denouement, it is true that the actor's face is already pretty sweaty, although not quite as much as it is later when Simon is actually in pain. Look at him when he closes the bottle of varnish, his hair is a mess sticking to his forehead. You could argue he was nervous, but in the rest of the movie he keeps his cool all the time without such displays of perspiration.
18th Feb 2022
Scream 2 (1997)
Character mistake: Mrs. Loomis is crazy and does not really think things through (she finishes her speech saying "who gives a f..." and that she's untraceable anyway), however it's worth noting that when she tells Sidney the official version that the police will believe, she is wrong; she says it wiping the gun clean from prints and throwing it away, which means that the police would find the supposed murder weapon with neither Mickey nor Sidney's prints on it, and neither wears gloves. Moreover, she plans to disappear and she was prominently featured in the media coverage, so people would certainly investigate her at least as victim.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't think that a psychopathic character acting irrationally and jumping to unlikely conclusions really constitutes a character mistake. But I do think it's also worth pointing out though that cops usually don't rely on fingerprints on guns anyway - the likelihood of finding a usable print on a gun is minuscule (only about 5%), and there's going to be traces of things like skin-oil and whatnot on it from being handled, so the cops will likely just assume it was used by someone in the room - the most likely candidate being either Sidney and Mickey. Mrs. Loomis is also using a false identity and has got surgery to change her face before, so she could likely disappear pretty easily. Real-life killers get away with disappearing all the time.
I am no expert in true crimes and forensics, I am just challenging the movie logic here (which is why I talk about the behaviour of a crazy character who is running exposition). What I get from your objection though is that the cops wouldn't be able to tell that she wiped the gun clean from prints and so that wouldn't stick out as suspicious? She didn't really change her face, since Sidney recognizes her when she gets a good look at her. Rewatching the scene anyway it's very evident that she does not really care because she simply puts her faith in the cops not being able to track the fictitious Debbie Salt, so I would be happy with a correction here, I was interested in pointing out that the whole first part about wiping the prints and throwing the gun aside does not seem to logically follow up, I take note that according to your objection using 'real science' and forensics practice it might not even be that.
23rd Oct 2008
Death on the Nile (1978)
Corrected entry: Several times, when Poirot explains that someone could have been the murderer, we see scenes in which someone is peeking through the window and observes when Jackie "shoots" Simon in the leg. The distance between Jackie and Simon varies frequently. It's particularly apparent when Salome Otterbourne "peeks" through the window, when Jackie and Simon are almost at arm's length, vs. the first time (when it really happens), when they are maybe a couch length away from each other.
Correction: The scenes each unfold with subtle differences because they aren't of the actual event, but rather Poirot's version at that time.
There is technically no reason why the premise of the murder (aka how Simon gets shot) and all the ancillary details would vary in Poirot's story. Sure, it's not 'the actual event' but the version has to be believable and can only be a variation of what we originally saw (and Poirot didn't). For instance, when he accuses the doctor to pocket the gun, the moment when Ferguson is 'distracted' is identical but Simon's shirt collar is in a completely different position. Or when the doctor calls Ferguson a "Stutzer" telling Miss Ottenbourne to come along, the delivery of the line is subtly different. If everything were *completely* different and just Poirot's mental construction without visual connections at all to the actual scene he after all did not witness, fine, but here we talk about small differences between alternate takes of parts of story unaltered by Poirot's theories.
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.
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.
3rd Dec 2021
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2020)
Plot hole: The whole premise of the movie is that history would write off the existence of the Ghostbusters after the events of the first movie. In that movie there was prolonged large scale destruction in the heart of a city with millions of inhabitants. It's simply impossible that people would forget or dismiss it. And that's if we do not even begin to assume that the second one happened, even if the director said it did; nothing in his movie shows that, and for a good reason (Statue of Liberty, anyone?).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's nothing in the movie to indicate that people in general have "forgotten" or "dismissed" the existence of the Ghostbusters, nor is that the "whole premise" of the movie. The fact the teacher is a fanboy and that the characters literally watch old news-clips and commercials for the Ghostbusters kind of goes against this. People simply just stopped talking about them because they did their jobs too well and went out of business 30 years prior... they were no longer relevant. I mean, if you want a real-world-analogue, just look at 9/11. It was a massive, generation-defining event, and yet outside of brief memorials once a year (which honestly, fewer and fewer people seem to pay attention to every year), people basically don't talk about it at all anymore. The only characters in the movie that don't believe in ghosts/the Ghostbusters at first are the kids. And their mother has been purposely sheltering them because she hates their grandfather-a Ghostbuster. So it makes sense they wouldn't necessarily know about them.
9/11 was a different kind of event; it didn't have 4 easy to remember heroes who already were on magazines covers all over the world and while it certainly dropped off the radar in many ways, some consequences in the long term have been permanent and it is in the history books. Here the world had proof that there are other dimensions, the dead, etc, and years later the Ghostbusters are relegated to a few youtube videos with a few thousand views (that with Peter supposedly teaching advertising and promotion, even). I didn't mention the kids, although the movie itself knows it's absurd that Podcast does not know anything about it and there's a joke about it. I understand if someone makes a point about the movie taking an ample creative license for the sake of not having to deal with 'realistic' implications of its comedic prequels since it wouldn't service the kind of story it wants to tell here, but I am surprised you say that the Ghostbusters here are not forgotten or dismissed. Somehow they are so fringe that not even the conspiracy theory guy knows about them, and the teacher knows because they are a childhood memory.
Like Ray tells a young Jason Reitman in Ghostbusters II, "Well some people have trouble believing in the paranormal." The public would have even less of a reason to believe in or think about the Ghostbusters since there were no Ghost sightings in thirty years. Not to mention the fact that men walked on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972 and astronauts were viewed as heroes, but we haven't visited the moon in fifty years, and astronauts are no longer regarded as heroes.
We keep conducting research in the field sending people in space when and where necessary and people are well aware that astronauts exist, even if they declined in popularity. It's not random obscure knowledge you can get only if you are looking specifically for it on some Youtube channel that a science nut and a conspiration theorist never heard of before. And we are again comparing something that does not have the same impact it would have to learn that dead people still walk (so to speak) the Earth. BTW, I am not sure (but I could be wrong here and please correct me) that the movie says that there have been 'no' ghost sightings at all; Ray said that they received less calls, not enough to pay their bills, not that ghosts disappeared entirely. It's just that in the Ghostbusters universe, people are kinda jaded about everything, which worked when the movies were comedies and you could say it was obvious paradox and satire that they would save the planet and still get sued once they weren't relevant anymore.
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.
21st Apr 2011
Scream 4 (2011)
Corrected entry: [Bit of a spoiler alert so don't' read any further if you haven't seen the movie yet.] At the end of the movie Sheriff Dewey tells the person who is the killer that Sidney is in critical condition and may or may not live but a few seconds later we see Sidney awake and alert and with enough strength to fight off the killer once again.
Correction: Anger and fear can be more than enough to gather enough strength to fight your way out of a difficult situation regardless of how much of a critical condition you are in.
True, but you can't have a lot of anger and fear if you are unconscious. The way the situation was presented, was that the doctors weren't even sure she was going to make it. It is part of the suspension of disbelief in movies to be very lenient with injuries and their implications, but this is really pushing it.
25th Apr 2011
Scream 4 (2011)
Corrected entry: If you have watched the rest of the Scream films you will know that Dewey was stabbed in the back in the first film which caused him to have a very noticeable limp during the rest of the original trilogy. In this film he walks completely normally. Even with modern day treatments he'd still have a little limp.
Correction: Whether or not a person can recover from a noticeable limp depends on the specific injury. All we know is that Dewey suffered a knife wound. Even a specialist in neurology would be incapable of determining the extent of the injury based on that little information. And this ignores that there are plenty of stories of "miraculous" recoveries, despite everything medical experts believe to be true.
The original Williamson script (which was revised anyway) does address it; "His limp is nearly nonexistent. Years of physical therapy", but as the entry correctly says, we don't have even a little limp. In the fifth Scream he is limping again. I am sure you could argue that he let himself go and his physical shape got worse and the limp relapsed, however there are so many inconsistencies throughout the saga about his unrealistic limp and lame arm that I don't think this should be corrected.
18th Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Stupidity: In the first part of the movie, Peter has to deal with the various 'visitors' and bring them too Strange. But the device Strange will use is just going to send them home no matter where they are (conveniently at the push of a button that even complete ignoramus can push) and there are visitors he does not know about, so everything up to that point has been meaningless. Then it becomes a matter of 'curing' every one of those visitors, but if -as it seems - they have been fetched moments before their deaths, 'curing' them is not going to fix anything. They are still going to die or end up in prison for life due to the horrors they committed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Part of the problem we have is that instead of just dealing with the Multiverse, they're also creating parallel or alternate realities in those universes since everyone is pulled from a different point in time in their realities, so any changes besides their death is going to create a new timeline. And I think part of the plan to send them back cured was that from their they could change their course of action or be able to reason with their Spider-Man, which would mean it's better than nothing.
Yes, that's the idea, with all the problems we underlined and the movie ignores entirely. Much like when in Avengers Endgame they don't show you how Cap brings back the stones with the precision required, they elegantly skipped showing us if and how each of them avoids being impaled, drowned, dissolved, or how does it even work for those fetched by the 'same' timeline. We'll see if they deal with these messy timelines at any point in the future.
Suggested correction: With the exception of Doc Ock - who learned Spidey's identity shortly before he died - there's nothing to suggest the other villains were fetched from their realities moments before their deaths, or that they will die upon returning to their realities. Whether or not they end up in prison after returning is irrelevant to the fact that Peter wants to help them. If he doesn't cure them, then they are free to continue causing mayhem regardless of what reality they are occupying.
It's stated in the film that BOTH Otto and Norman died while fighting Spider-Man and that both were pulled from their reality shortly before dying. Max then recounts his fight before being pulled and says "I was about to die." Then Curt asks Max if he died too, but they get interrupted before we find out.
"Shortly" is a relative term. Goblin discovered Spider-Man's identity at Thanksgiving dinner and then died a day or two later. Electro's fate was rather ambiguous, but Jamie Foxx himself implied prior to The Amazing Spider-Man 2's release that he would be appearing in more films, likely including the Sinister Six movie that never came to fruition. We know from The Amazing Spider-Man that Lizard didn't die.
"Shortly before dying" as in pulled during the fight that they died during, not a few days before. It wasn't about being pulled when they found out who Spider-Man was.
Even so, if Green Goblin is pulled from his reality 5 minutes before his death, that would be considered shortly, but it certainly wouldn't be mere moments before he died as the original entry was suggesting. The movie never explicitly states how soon before their deaths they were pulled, therefore we as viewers can reasonably assume that there could have been just enough time for them to alter their course of actions and prevent their deaths.
Also, the reason why Peter wants to 'cure' them is not because they are causing mayhem, but as he explicitly says, because he's not comfortable sending them back when 'some' of them will die - thing is, he can't know that curing their conditions will save them, the whole idea kinda comes out of nowhere. I submitted it as Stupidity because I was sure someone would object it's not a plot hole since it's just stuff the characters 'believe' and there's no proof it's true, however it's funny that 90% of the stuff Peter does in this movie is probably completely pointless.
Saying that he can't know that curing their conditions won't save them is like a doctor saying they won't give a cancer patient chemotherapy because they don't know if it will save them. Their chances of being saved are certainly better if they are cured and cease fighting Spider-Man. If Osborn is returned cured before he attempts to impale Spider-Man with his glider, then that would certainly prevent him from dying in that situation.
I absolutely respect the fact that they want Spidey to be heroic and that the moment he knows that they are going to die he wants to do something about it, that's why I say that it's just funny that there's no indication at all that it would work (by all logic it would not) but it's elegantly glossed over. Let me remind you though that he's not a doctor that wants to cure his sick patient, he's a doctor that wants to cure someone who died 1-2 decades earlier in accidents he doesn't really get into the details of.
There not being an indication that it would work does not make it a stupidity. He can't let the villains remain in his reality, or else it will cause a major multiversal catastrophe. He doesn't want to send them back to their realities and die fighting other Spider-Men, so he does what he thinks is his best option. For this to be a stupidity, there would have to be a rather obvious alternate solution that he overlooked (such as asking Strange to make everyone forget Mysterio's broadcast instead of making everyone forget Peter Parker is Spider-Man).
I don't want to make my own movie in my head, the one we got is more than enjoyable, and I don't want to say that the character is stupid (any movie would be easily solved with afterthought or cynicism, such as "let Strange do his thing"); I merely pointed out that the plot takes you for a ride forcing you to buy premises that are taken as 100% fact and logical (they never ever even imply the fact that what Peter does could be pointless or problematic - in most movies, saving dead people is not a good idea) when they are anything but that. If I know that a crazy person died driving a car into a tree, curing his craziness is one step and not even the most important (would a crazy Norman not survive, if he goes back in time at the right moment and knows what is going to happen? again, the bigger flaw being that if he remembers dying, how can I undo that?) but the movie is surely not going for the "It's most certainly useless, but aww, at least he tried" angle.
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 3 (2000)
Corrected entry: I think a few of the characters seem to have forgotten the 2nd victim in the opening scene. References are made to "Two dead people" when there were three and "three and a bodyguard" when there were five dead at that point.
Correction: He didn't say three dead people and a body guard. He said three dead celebrities and a body guard.
27th Aug 2001
Scream 3 (2000)
Corrected entry: When everybody is at Jennifer's house and the killer starts sending them faxes, the power is cut and everyone runs outside. But a few seconds later, when one of the guys runs back in, the fax machine is still going, even with the power out.
Correction: The killer might just have cut the lights - power switches often run on a separate circuit. Alternatively, some people have suggested there's a UPS (uninterruptible power supply) next to the fax, which could keep it going.
27th Aug 2001
Scream 3 (2000)
Corrected entry: When Dewey is shooting at the one-way mirror he fires seven shots form a revolver (they only hold six) then he fires again without reloading and is surprised to find it empty.
10th Apr 2005
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: When the officers pick Sydney and Halle up at their dorm, they tell them they're going to a safe house straight away. It can't be more than 5-10 minutes later when the killer catches them (since they're still within a short run of the university campus), and even allowing 20 minutes for the car crash scene and Halle's murder, and another 15 for Sydney to run back to the theatre, it's still barely 45 minutes. In that same time, Derek has been kidnapped, carried to the theatre, stripped and tied to the hanging star, then tortured as the frat guys and sorority girls throw a party around him, which they've also had time to completely clean up (since there's no trace of the party when Sydney gets there). There is no way all of that could have happened in the time frame allowed.
Correction: It's not unrealistic for the frat guys and girls to kidnap Derek, take him to the theater, and tie him up in that amount of time. They could do that in 20 minutes. We also don't see that the kids have a whole party. They just pour beer on Derek.
It's hard to negate that there's something wrong with the timeline of the movie there; Derek's hazing is merely an excuse to get drunk, it's not like they were just tying him up, throwing a bucket of stuff at him and then leave; they were dancing around him and pouring the beer they were themselves drinking. Not only they cleaned everything up (you do see the odd bottle and cup around), but the stage is also completely dry. And 45 minutes is an estimate that is mighty generous too, I'd cut it in half.
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.
24th Nov 2002
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: When Derek is captured by the frat guys, he has weird marks drawn on him in red marker. These are clearly visible when Rebecca Gayheart and the other sorority girls are taunting him with prop knives. However, a few scenes later when the guys pour beer over him the marks have dissapeared, returning when Sidney finds him.
Correction: The weird marking is stage blood (which is completely washable using alcohol). All of the frat boys and sorrority girls are in the play at the theater they are punishing Derek in for giving away the Greek letters, which means all of the frat boys and sorrority girls were allowed access to the stage blood for self rehearsel and actual rehearsel. Also the play they are acting in includes numerous deaths which explains the stage blood. So the weird marks were washed away, over time, by the beer.
Having established that fake blood washes away, the entry says that the blood reappears, and the correction does not address that. There's a super-fast (you -have - to freeze-frame to catch it) but right as it cuts to the traffic lights in Sidney's story where you see a 'snapshot' of the end of the hazing, and Derek has all the markings reapplied to his body. So apparently after marking him and showering him in beer, they put marks all over him again.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters 'frost' the inside of the Statue of Liberty and are shown dousing it in a rather wasteful, abundant way - with just two backpacks of slime. That's just a comically small amount of produce for such a huge monument. And they even have plenty left for the battle with Vigo. (01:27:30)
Correction: 1. You have no idea how much positive slime they have made 2. You have no idea how much slime is needed to make the statue of liberty come to life. It is only fiction after all, made up by the movie makers, so they are allowed to make the rules. It's not a mistake in the movie, at all.
It is indeed fiction! I am merely saying that with two backpack tanks they 'frost' the inside of a 151 feet tall monument, and they have plenty more to spare. I do admit to not having the technical specs of psychoactive slime and what the recommended usage in public monuments engineering is. On a macroscopic scale, it feels a little off.
Correction: As shown with the toaster, you don't need to completely cover something in slime to animate it. Remember, a small drizzle made the toaster dance. They seem to spray a comparatively scaled-up amount inside of the statue. You also have to factor in the fact that emotions are shown to have an effect on the volume of slime - strong emotions cause more slime to generate. (Which is why there's so much in the first place. We also see this happen during the courtroom scene.) Chances are, the backpacks are constantly being "refueled" by their emotions or the positivity they are generating.
For the 'small drizzle', Ray made sure to pour the thing back and forth through the whole length of the slit, effectively coating its interiors, and they splooge that thing all over the place in, a randomic and wasteful way, which we see before any of it expands because of the goodwill of people - which by the way never happens, at least it's never represented in the shots of the Statue; if at any point they showed the statue bubbling with power, charging because of the positivity or something, we'd never have had the conversation about the museum either. It's not that I missed what the film said, it's just that it's more often than not contradicted by what it is shown.
I literally just loaded up the scene - it was a small drizzle, in no way do they "effectively coat the interior" of the teaser. And how precisely can you say it's a "random and wasteful way"? Do you have personal experience bringing statues to life with slime? At no point does the film contradict itself. It shows early on that a certain volume of slime can bring a small object (the toaster) to life, and then pays it off later with a larger object. (The statue). Also, they do indeed show energy flowing through the slime in the statue when the music starts... you literally see like bolts/electricity/energy moving through it.
The 'energy' part was referred to the properties of the slime to increase in volume and such, you don't see that going on even in the scene when it flashes activating because of the music. I haven't had experience bringing statues to life with slime (at most applying gels in cove joints), but I had experience talking with other people about the movie, and we all laughed at the fact that they had a seemingly unlimited amount of slime, but hey, you can always meet other people with a different view and it was just my little bubble.
TedSixton makes an excellent point that I forgot, the slime increases in volume when more positive energy is added. You can go many ways with this theory, even so philosophical as to say the statue of liberty is such a positive symbol that the slime that was sprayed on it started to grow immediately simply because of what the statue of liberty represents or perhaps in a way has already gathered all positive energy of the city into itself, which is why it came to life. Not a mistake in any case.
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.