Corrected entry: When the slime jar bursts into flames because of the judge's malevolence, you can easily see (and from multiple camera angles too) that the flame does not erupt from the jar itself but rather by it. (00:32:30)
Sammo
4th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
9th Oct 2019
Captain Marvel (2019)
Corrected entry: Vers avoids Coulson and the other agent because she's headed downstairs. While she has been remarkably lucky not to stumble into Talos who was in fact at level -6, one wonders why she was going dowstairs at all. She had no business doing anything further underground and she wanted to leave. She comes back only because she understands Fury is in danger. (00:51:10)
Correction: I'd suggest this is a contrivance, maybe a character mistake, rather than a plot hole. The film/story still works as a result of this, which wouldn't be the case if it was a plot hole.
20th Feb 2022
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: When Ghostface stabs Mr. Himbry, the man screams at full lungs; it's 10 minutes to 5 PM and there's a janitor two rooms away, but nobody finds his body until much later in the night - and that is critical to the plan, because he's the designated diversion.
Correction: Actually, I can correct myself here because there is the fact that everyone was leaving the school at that time, and the janitor is hard of hearing. It does not make much sense that we see the two culprits hanging out at the video store after the killing, but I suppose there are several scenarios one can paint where the body was hidden safely until it was time to display it later in the night, and so they had time to show up somewhere else later, not knowing the exact timeline there.
I was just watching a video where they talk about how it's now a trope in movies that janitors are completely oblivious to their surroundings. Big action sequences happen behind them while they listen to headphones and go about their jobs. You said the janitor was hard of hearing, but it could also be this trope at play.
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.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The whole plan of the Ghostbusters relies on the fact that the Statue of Liberty, being the symbol that it is, will rally the population of New York drawing their positive energies out. Forgetting the fact that a giant statue trampling things in the middle of the city is quite likely to inspire negativity, let's go with the movie's theory; it's not what it is shown. The people start singing, disturbing Vigo, at a random moment that has nothing to do with the statue showing up and in fact happens when it is already just lying on the ground.
Correction: Did you somehow miss all the shots of the people cheering as the statue walks through the streets? Watch this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpyvDWfK9qs They literally show the crowds cheering as the statue walks through the streets, thus supplying the positive energy the Ghostbusters need. The moment you're referring to where they start singing does indeed happen later, but it's a different scene entirely. Maybe you watched an edited version of the movie or something? Because they definitely show the statue bringing out the positivity in the crowds in every version I've ever seen.
Oh dear, no, I don't watch edited down versions if possible, especially when I submit the timecodes. If you watch the video you yourself posted -but I hope you didn't, since it's edited down and misses the one moment when you actually see the slime move from a single spot-, you'll see that not the statue nor the crowd cause the slime mass to move or do anything. So the statue brings the positivity out in the crowd at its best only when it's limp on the ground, just as I said.
After the slime starts to retract, it cuts to a wide-shot showing crowds outside cheering. It makes perfect sense that the closer the statue gets to the slime (therefore bringing the positive energy closer), and the more the crowd cheers them on, the weaker the slime shell gets. Hence, it starts to retract. I don't understand what the issue you're having is. No offense, but it just seems like you're trying to manufacture a mistake where there is none.
Manufacturing mistakes would be a terribly inefficient way to spend time when in the same time you can spot dozens others. We simply get a different vibe from the scene, and the representation works better for you (and other commentators) than for me. It's a fictitious shell and if you tell me that the fact that it parts from that one skylight makes sense because it's weakened, I honestly at this point I don't mind, I wrote "I stand corrected" to the main issue like 4-5 comments ago.;).
Correction: They brought the statue with them to break the slime around the museum, not to rally the people. It was covered in positive slime, which caused it to come to life, like the toaster. It's presence, and the positive slime, had a positive effect on the people around it. It lying on the street helps the positive slime affect the people around it. Just like the negative slime affecting the guys when they come out of the sewer. Apparently it doesn't need to be physically touched.
If the statue lying lifeless in the street were meant to influence people, there'd be any visual representation of it, my main problem with all of this is that they show nothing about the statue 'charging' or 'focusing' the power of positivity. However, you do have a point; the main goal was to break into the museum, after all, and the people chanting to save the day were not part of the plan, so I shouldn't nitpick that. The plan still makes no sense because it's scary as hell to have a metal giant roam the street crushing cars, and we have to fill a lot of blanks, but we can embrace the cheesy spirit of it. I stand corrected.
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.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters can get inside the museum when the Statue of Liberty breaks the museum's ceiling light. Good, but the whole museum was surrounded by a shell of slime that extended above it too. The Ghostbusters do nothing to open a hole in the slime, nor they could know it would open, and the Statue has nothing to do with it. (01:31:45)
Correction: I think you somehow completely missed the point of them bringing in the statue in the first place. They animate the statue and walk it through the streets to act as a symbol to bring out the positive emotions/good vibes of the people. The positivity weakens the negatively-fueled slime shell enough for them to get inside. They quite literally show people cheering in the streets and the slime "retreating" from the ceiling windows as a result. Watch this clip, it explains their plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2wtteHUGjg.
Correction: The positive slime caused the negative slime to retreat. You can see this happening when the statue bends over the museum.
As I said, they do nothing to open a hole, it just happens; the Statue is close to a whole side of the museum that is covered in goop, but does not distance itself from it. Does it react to the music speakers? To the torch's warmth? It's just random stuff that happens. Which is totally fine in a movie like this, but does not prevent from noting it. However, since the whole idea of using the statue comes to them because they need to 'crack' the barrier, I'd say you are right there; they didn't know how and if it would work perhaps, but the idea IS set up. I still think the visual representation of it is inconsistent, since I don't get why the hole would open in that area of all areas.
I didn't think it had anything to do with touching the negative slime first. The negative slime was weakened by the positive emotions of the crowd, and their positive emotions came from seeing the Statue and Ghostbusters coming down the street, and the statue came to life with the positive slime and music. In the weakened state, the negative slime started to retract without the Ghostbusters needing to do anything else. They would have seen the ceiling being uncovered and then broke in that way.
Yup, Bishop73 got it 100% correct. They state in the movie that they need a symbol to bring out the positivity to get through the slime, and the movie shows the slime retreating after the crowds outside cheer for them in the statue. (Not sure where lionhead got the idea that it was the positive slime that did it, since the movie does not indicate that at all).
Positive feedback here. It shows the positive slime is more powerful than the negative slime. That's why they hose Janosz, Ray and Vigo in the end with the positive slime. It thinks all together the positive energy of the crowd caused the positive slime to grow and become even more powerful and the negative slime to retreat. That's how I always interpreted it at least. But you can go several ways here. In any case, it's not random.
Ah I see! You see sufficient visual correlation between the crowd cheering and the slime retracting, I don't see that, so the fact that the slime opens up freeing the skylight doesn't feel visually correlated with the 'mobilization of positive energy' thingy. Later it 'weakens' reacting in a different manner.
10th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: Dana is really worried about her baby throughout the whole movie. She was literally almost eaten by a bathtub of slime less than 24 hours before. So naturally, when the guys show up to investigate, she blows them off to go on a date. (00:58:30)
Correction: Dana asked Janine if she could babysit Oscar for her while she was on her date and Janine said yes.
That's not the point; they are going to check the "slime stuff" (as Peter says) that happens to be the same slime that nearly ate her baby and the reason why she's there and needs a babysitter to begin with, but to her the date with Peter is more important. Like, way more important, she does not even think about it a second.
Peter sees that Dana is stressed out, so he offers to take her to dinner to help ease her. She's reluctant at first until Peter mentions having Janine as a babysitter. After that Dana agrees to use Janine as a babysitter for Oscar as she works for the Ghostbusters and Dana knows how reliable Janine is.
15th Nov 2021
Eternals (2021)
Corrected entry: Spoiler; Ajak and 'the true villain' are the only ones who know the true nature of the mission and the fact that the Earth will cease to exist in 7 days. None of her fellow Eternals would know where to find her or suspect that she's dead or that anything is wrong, but the villain makes them find her body on purpose to provide a distraction to keep them busy investigating her death. Provide a 'distraction' to someone who is completely unsuspecting (and actively lead them) is pure nonsense.
Correction: He explains this plainly. He knows that when the earth is being destroyed they would go to Ajak for help, Since she is dead however they will know something is wrong and will investigate the emergence. But if it was a Deviant, they will be distracted killing them to not know about the emergence before it is too late. At least, that is what he had hoped.
"When the others realise something is happening to the Earth, they'll come to you. When they find your body, they'll know the Deviants are back. It'll keep them busy during the Emergence." It makes absolutely no sense. During the movie, none of them cares about what is happening to the planet. There's no such sense of urgency. He does all that to "keep busy" people who never met in centuries and never interfered to any world-threatening phenomenon.None of them knows about the Emergence.If they didn't find her at home, they wouldn't even know she was dead and that would have only delayed them further. He needs to stall them just for a couple days, not years.
He also said he suspected that Ajak would change her mind and betray Arishem. If he hasn't killed her, she would have tried to recruit the others to stop the Emergence. The Deviants had already escaped the ice, he just lured them together to kill Ajak. His plan kind of went sideways since the group was to find her dead and seek out the Deviants, but the Deviants already attacked them. Plus, had Sersi not learned their true mission, they would be too busy to stop the Emergence.
Killing Ajak is the logical part. Hauling her body across the continent so the others will find it is the absurd part. Why having killed the only person who was a threat to his plan would he build a murder mystery about it? He had already won. If they didn't find Ajak at home, assuming they'd bother to go there to begin with, they would have waited for her, at most looked for her presumably in vain, and wasted time. Why stir anything?
He stirs to keep them distracted, hoping they would not investigate the earthquakes for one thing, and then the sudden giant volcano for another. He knows they are attached to the Earth and it's people, would try to safe them. He tried to convince them it were the Deviants, not something else. Unfortunately for him, Sersi became their leader, whilst he expected it to be him.
Even if they would figure out on their own that 'something was happening' (and they didn't), they didn't have the faintest idea about the dormant Celestial business. Deviants are literally the only thing that would bring them together and back to action (not even that, Gil just butchers one and does not give a damn). Ikaris states matter-of-factly that he needed to do things and certain stuff would happen only because he needs to make the movie happen. They were all 'busy' already, leading their boring lives, and they had completely insufficient data to react, especially if he didn't spoon-feed them that it was something connected to them to begin with.
The Deviants did come back, after dormant in the ice. That's what brings them together, that's why Ikarus killed Ajak, that's why he needed to distract them from her death. It's not that difficult to understand. You're just not seeing the connection.
I am simply not seeing connections that don't exist. The Deviants are not "why" he killed Ajak at all; he kills her because she wants to stop the Emergence. The Deviants are just a distraction (which is a misleading term, for the reasons I underlined in the original post, but let's go with that). They are a weak colony stranded in Alaska and unable to do any substantial damage that got free a week before; It will be Ajak's power that causes them to be able to be on the radar again and changes their target from humans to Eternals (which is something they never did before and he couldn't have anticipated).
I didn't say he killed Ajak because of the deviants. He killed Ajak because the deviants would cause the Eternals to come together again, they will come to Ajak (or she to them) and she will tell them about the emergence. So, he kills Ajak but once they encounter the Deviants again and Ajak is missing, they will start to investigate and perhaps find out about the emergence. So, he puts her body to be found, so they will focus on the deviants. Alright?
No, the others wouldn't come to Ajak (or vice versa, she didn't even know about them) because of the Deviants. The Deviants aren't back, there's just half a dozen harmless leftovers that got thawed out and that he 'feeds' (it's never said or implied that he knew that they'd become stronger and Eternal-murders, too). The others may go ask Ajak for an opinion because of the strange earthquake - and you never see a sense of urgency in this movie. This guy goes out of his way to ring a giant alarm bell, so he can tell a fake story to people who haven't been in touch in ages and may have some mild curiosity about something that does not involve them as far as they know, since they don't know about Emergence or any of that stuff.
3rd Dec 2021
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2020)
Corrected entry: Spoiler: Everything goes well in the end and all the ghosts (and returning demigod Gozer) are sucked into a giant ghost trap. In fact everything goes so well that the trap selectively spares one specific ghost so it can have a lengthy farewell scene, hug and smooch every single character at leisure and leave on its own terms.
Correction: The other ghosts were above the traps. The one specific ghost was not. Every time a ghost has been trapped they have been above the trap. In the first movie they even have to move Slimer to position him to be trapped.
This trap cluster was designed to cover an area, If Gozer could get away simply because he/she was standing one foot to the right or left of the nearest trap, the plan was flawed to begin with.
Even if Gozer stepped away from the traps, the Ghostbusters could simply wrangle her into the traps with their proton packs.
Correction: That particular ghost was not standing near the traps. Granted, the traps pull in the ghosts floating over the farm, but those spirits were in direct line with the trap laser beams, that ghost you reference was standing safely away.
3rd Dec 2021
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2020)
Corrected entry: A jaded Ray Stantz tells Phoebe on the phone that the old Ghostbusters' HQ was turned into a Starbucks. However, the post-credits scene shows the old building untouched.
24th Mar 2021
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Corrected entry: The heroes find Steppenwolf's base thanks to Cyborg's dad, who superheated the core of a Mother Box so it shows up on a thermal scanner. But the box itself wasn't emitting any heat on the outside, and a satellite can't magically infer the internal heat of an object if it's not conveyed to the surface. If Wayne has such precise satellite sensors, it would also spot a nuclear plant suddenly drained from radiation, and the intense energy (and heat) caused by Steppenwolf's activities.
Correction: It's impossible to know the exact effect that the laser had on the Mother Box, other than the fact that it was able to mark it in such a way that it could be tracked by Bruce's satellites.
30th Aug 2021
The Suicide Squad (2021)
Corrected entry: Dubois is holding Waller at penpoint, but when he comments sarcastically "A little extreme?" Idris Elba is pulling the arm back. Yet in the next shot the pen is still pointed at her jugular. (00:18:55)
Correction: He doesn't move his arm back. It seems he's about to but not an error.
13th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Corrected entry: With a heavy weapon, Cara is unable to damage a sewer grate (obviously placed in the middle of a bar) of the same kind that Leia shot open with a single pistol shot in the original Star wars movie. The homage is deliberate and so has to be the difference in outcome. Still, it's not like it makes any sense. (00:07:40)
Correction: Then it's not the same kind of grate. Even if it looks the same, it's made of a different metal, one that is obviously blaster proof.
'Obviously' there is no way to compare with scientific precision the power of the weapons and the resilience of the plumbing material used in an imaginary universe, but there's nothing 'obvious' about a sewer grate in a random cantina in the most backwater planet being more resistant than all the military-grade armor in the series. Leia blasted a huge hole in the trash compactor grate with a gun that was not even 1/3 the size of Cara's.
17th Apr 2021
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Corrected entry: In this version, Flash does not carry the hostages to safety; he is sort of a cheerleader/crossing guard appearing in different spots of the stairs asking if they are OK and saying "This way." What sort of role in a battle is that? How does that help in any way? It's not that he's afraid of battle like in Whedon's version and he fights nobody on the path. (01:58:25)
Correction: Flash not moving the others up the stairs could have been for their own safety. This ability has been shown to emit sparks and electricity. We're even shown earlier that simply running in trainers is enough to incinerate them and sliding across the ground is enough leave cracks on it. Moving people from one location to another could have resulted in them getting electrocuted or burned, so it was likely best to let them run up the stairs themselves to ensure each of their safeties as best as possible.
He rescues his future girlfriend and the ever important sausage without burning them and no bodily harm from the wrong amount of kinetic energy applied or anything, which could be another possible objection. It is honestly the weirdest 'heroic' sequence I have ever seen, since there are literally zero threats on that staircase. Maybe it's just intended as a full-on gag even if played straight.
The two scenarios are very different. The scene where he saves Iris, he is merely taking Iris from her car, and placing her on the ground. With the hostages, he would have to take hold of them, and move them up several flights of stairs. The distance he would be travelling is much larger than the car crash scenario, and due to the increase in kinetic energy, this might put them at much larger risk of injury.
Another thing to note: You can see that when he grabs hold of Iris' body, he has to handle her body with the utmost care, implying that he has to be extremely careful when he interacts with others while using the super speed. And even in that situation, he is only placing her on the ground. So running back and forth moving the people up the stairs might not be the safest thing.
Not even from the car, from midair; he nullifies somehow the whole momentum she has and redirects it with no trauma (same as the sausage). Of course, not referring to the theatrical cut where he just carries people.But I'm not debating physics, just pointing out that (going by what it is shown, you can tell me he pushed into oblivion 8 parademons and 20 falling bricks off-screen) the hero just spends the whole time shouting "You ok?" at people, sparking lightning bolts everywhere.That's...something.
24th Mar 2021
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Corrected entry: In this version, Queen Hippolyta whispers "Return to me, Diana" as she shoots the arrow, as opposed to "Listen to me, Diana" in Whedon's version. Whedon's line made sense, since it was a warning, this does not, since Diana never comes back to Themyscira nor she is supposed to, being busy thwarting the invasion in the Land of Men. There's no reason why the Queen would say that line. (00:43:10)
Correction: It wasn't the Queen telling Diana to come home at that moment, but a way of saying "survive the war." This would be like a mother telling her soldier son as he goes to war to return home.
Under normal circumstances yes, but in the WW movie (forgetting comic book canon) the Queen herself bids her farewell on the beach telling her that she can't come back if she leaves, and by every indication she has not in a century even if she was unhappy here. Ironically in the movie itself she "returns home" only when we see her dead! I know it's splitting hairs though, and I am swayed by the fact that in the other version this unnecessary contradiction was changed, for the better.
24th Mar 2021
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Corrected entry: Dr. Stone manages to miss the parademon in his apartment (or the broken window, for that matter) when it should have been in plain sight literally as he opened the door. (01:40:40)
Correction: It was hiding behind the table. Also, he thought Victor caused all the damage, including the broken window.
I can certainly see how he could assume that Victor did the damage, ties in nicely with the broken tape player, good thought. However I still don't see where the beast could hide, if you look at the room as it is shown for instance around 46:50, there's no way not to see someone in that corner while you approach the closet - it comes from the right of the window, not the left where the table is.
He is focussed on the mess at the closet, and the missing box. He is not looking in that corner. As he approaches the corner he doesn't see the creature because it's hunched behind the table. It is also quite dark in the room.
Again, you can't help but look into that part of the house, and the table is on the left of the broken window, the creature comes from the right, where there's just a computer station too small for the winged demon to hide under, and at the same time preventing anything to just duck into the corner unnoticed (there's no corner, in that sense). That's my perception anyway.
25th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Chapter 1: The Mandalorian - S1-E1
Corrected entry: Mando is 'scoping' the place with the Blurrg beasts but is surprised by one of them. Funnily enough, despite having the beast in his sight (the scope he is using is his weapon's!) he does not shoot the weapon he has ready, and tries and use another one. He also never reaches for his blaster, not even when the second beast approaches, and he could easily die. It's as if he knew that he was going to meet a friendly beast tamer. (00:23:50)
Correction: This is taking the scene completely out of context. The Blurrg are known to be pack and riding animals, for all he knows they belong to someone. Wouldn't be smart to start killing someone's livestock. He only uses the scope of the gun to see further, he is not hunting these animals. Therefore instead of shooting he tried to scare it away with flames.
16th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Corrected entry: The jocks who are recklessly driving their Trans-Am causing Wonder Woman to give them the Big Boot are also driving a car in Virginia without the required front license plate. (00:11:30)
Correction: That's not a mistake (factual or otherwise). Some people choose not to. One time I bought a new car that didn't have a front plate holder (the holes weren't drilled in) and the dealership told me when I get my plates I can come back and they'll install it for me. I never did and drove it for 10 years without front plates in a state that requires it.
14th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Chapter 10: The Passenger - S2-E2
Corrected entry: Mando's passenger is a frog woman who has not been established as being in any way dangerous or wanted or have any reason to hide (and her cargo is her offspring, which is again nothing illegal), but Mando acts sneakily to hide her presence.
Correction: When Mando said traveling at sublight speed was dangerous, he was talking about for himself. He wasn't trying to be sneaky in hiding her because of who she was, he was trying to avoid the New Republic at any cost. Telling her to be quiet was so there wouldn't be an extra reason to force him to the outpost.
Logically it would not be an extra reason since all they check and ask for is the ship's data and if he mentioned that he had a female aboard who needed to deliver her offspring, they probably would have let him go more easily without getting too much into technicalities, however I don't want to move into alternative writing and speculation. Mando did not exactly keep a poker face in the circumstance but it's not out of line with the character and he was acting on impulse without a plan. I am fine with the correction, actually.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: The slime is overflowing from the jar, the explosion is coming from the slime itself, whether it is slime that is still in the jar or slime that has spilled onto the table.