Corrected entry: At Roman's birthday party, Roman and Jennifer go off ALONE to find a missing room and end up in the basement. Later, Gale is looking for Roman and goes straight to the basement. She calls his name and gets no answer, but is adamant that he is in the basement and continues down to find him. Why would she think he was down there if she had no idea where he went?
Sammo
27th Aug 2001
Scream 3 (2000)
Correction: There are certainly dozens of places in that massive house where the two could have been and Gale knew barely the general direction they went to, but what draws Gale to that room is the fact that the light is turned on and you can see it flicker already when she opens the door. It's very reasonable.
17th Jul 2019
Scream 3 (2000)
Other mistake: When Sidney is on the set with her mother's covered body, it rises up and reaches for her, speaking in her mom's voice. Sidney calls out for Dewey before climbing out of the window. However, when she's grabbed, she yells out her own name: Sidney.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: No, listen to the voice; it's Fake Ghost Mom that yells "Sidney" as part of her Scooby spooky act; Neve Campbell just cries out "No."
27th Aug 2001
Scream 3 (2000)
Continuity mistake: At the part where Sidney is on the set of her house and the killer is chasing her up the stairs, she runs right by the plants, but in the next take she is right next to the plants just about to throw one. (01:05:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Sorry but no; she runs by -some - plants, and in the next take she is right next -other - plants, which she throws at the killer, who is just passing by the -first - plants. You can see both plants at the same time on screen if you are watching a version in the proper format.
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.
22nd Jan 2004
Scream 3 (2000)
Corrected entry: In the scene where the cast are hanging out in Jennifer's house with Gale and Dewey, the door opens by itself and Dewey points his gun out the door. When he calls out the names of the actors, watch the wall behind him and Gale, you can see a shadow of a cast/crew member on the wall.
18th Nov 2006
Scream 3 (2000)
Corrected entry: In the very beginning of the movie at nighttime, as the helicopter is flying over the "HOLLYWOOD" sign, it shines a searchlight on it, lighting up the letters. The letters are cloaked in darkness. The "HOLLYWOOD" sign is lighted with surface-mounted spotlights at night. The letters should never have been dark. (00:00:05)
Correction: There could be a number of explainations why the lights are off, a fault of the power to them or someone forgot to flick the on switch.
Correction: Seems to me the statement is factually wrong. Never been there, but from the Hollywood sign website (because of course it has a website) "The Sign hasn't been lit since the 2000 New Years Eve celebration and that was only for one night. Before that, the Sign hadn't been lit since the 1940's. If you ever drive by and see the Sign seemingly lit up, that's because the Sign is large and white and often reflects the light coming from Hollywood below."
28th Aug 2005
Scream 3 (2000)
Continuity mistake: When the bodyguard finds Gale eavesdropping on Dewey and Jennifer, they soon confront each other and Tom is sitting in a chair with his left hand on the arm rest. In the next shot Tom is smoking a half finished cigarette with his left hand, but he had no time to change the hand with the cigarette in it between shots. (00:40:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
27th Aug 2001
Scream 3 (2000)
Continuity mistake: The first time Gale goes to Jennifer's house, if you look when Dewy gets out of his car the window is down. Look quickly to see when Dewy closes the door the window is up. (00:30:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I really can't see it. He gets out of the car and closes the (car) door in the same shot so it's not that. He gets out of the car (the window is indeed down) and then goes to the front door, but he does not close that door, and from there you can't see the driver side window anyway. Am I missing something?
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.
16th Mar 2013
Scream 3 (2000)
Continuity mistake: In the opening scene Christine is completely dry when she steps out of the shower. (00:03:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
6th Jun 2018
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: As Dawnie answers the phone and the killer says "it's Ted" he can be seen sneaking in to the house in the background - he doesn't have a phone to his mouth. It can't be the second killer as he repeats the line "don't forget to set the alarm" which could have only been heard from inside the house.
Correction: Both killers were present Mrs Loomis was inside and Mickey was calling Cici.
Correction: Could easily have had a hands-free headset in, under the mask.
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.
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.
27th Aug 2001
Scream 2 (1997)
Continuity mistake: When Dewey is being stabbed in front of Gale in the soundproof room, there is already blood on his his shirt. But you have to look very closely. (01:22:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I did my best to look closely, very closely even, but I don't see the blood. Someone may want to look extra closely and confirm this, but I can also add that since Dewey fell earlier and is bleeding from the forehead, traces of blood on his shirt wouldn't be so surprising.
29th Aug 2003
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: When the killer is on the phone to Randy, Randy runs up to a guy with a mobile, who is right near the van that the killer is hiding in. Shouldn't Randy be able to hear the killer in the van which is right next to him?
Correction: Not necessarily. Randy is still far enough away the last time the killer speaks that he probably wouldn't hear her through solid metal, by the time he's close enough to be able to hear the killer doesn't speak any more, just reaches out and grabs him.
He actually delivers with gusto the "Wrong guy, dead boy" line when Randy is literally inches away from the van, while filming him through the van window as shown by the footage - and the other window of the van is even open. Technically possible but the entry is more factually correct than the correction.
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: If you watch the direction in which Jennifer and Roman dissapear, there are no other places or doors they could possibly have gone, that's how Gale knows they both have to be down there in the basement.