Corrected entry: In the beginning of the movie when Sidney first walks out of the dorm building we see a red sticker on the door by where she puts her hand, but in the next shot from the door outside, if you look closly the red sticker is not there. In fact it is an entirely different door.
Sammo
27th Aug 2001
Scream 2 (1997)
28th Oct 2014
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: Mickey gives himself away as the killer. At the hospital after Derek is cut on his arm, he tells Sidney, what made him go back into the house anyway? The only people there were Sidney, Derek, and the killer. Sidney even has a strange look on her face after he says that, like, how did you know he went back in the house, but says nothing.
Correction: How is this a plot hole or even a mistake? The producers could have had that in the script on purpose to see if the audience would catch onto it. Movies have been known to do that. As you said. Even Sidney had a strange look on her face when he said it. So it might have been part of the script anyways.
I am "correcting the correction" a bit because Sidney's strange look on her face is merely because she is buying into what he says and suspects Derek; from that point on she always suspects Derek and never shows to mistrust Mickey. But the entry was inconsistent anyway, because hours pass since the "slicing" scene and by that time it would be completely out of logic if nobody knew the circumstances that led to their friend being hospitalized.
17th Dec 2001
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: At the cinema at the start, a few people come out saying how scared they are. Stab has been running for less than two minutes and hardly anything has happened. If they scare this easily, what are they doing at a horror movie?
Correction: The girl says that she's scared because Stab was based on fact. She may have simply been disturbed by that.
The entry mentions that a few people say they are scared, and it is true, you hear them say that. The correction focuses about another girl entirely who says she is disturbed by the fact that those people really died (and so she did know in advance the story, not that you can Miss it since it's on the poster - although all sort of people walk into a cinema dragged by their friends, it doesn't address all the others). The cinema is a single screen one, too, so it's not like they can come in from another projection.
24th Nov 2002
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: Sidney is told to hit Alt+M in the library when her computer freezes to access her message, but when she does this the sound effect used is of 4 keys being hit, not 2. (01:02:55)
Correction: This type of command requires you to hit the combination of keys at the same time. I don't know about you, but I often have to hit such multiple key commands more than once because I did not press them at the same time. Perhaps that is what Sydney did here.
I can't agree with this correction. If you watch the scene, that is definitely the sound of someone pushing multiple keys in sequence and not someone who tried once or twice to press simultaneous ones and failed. I count even more than 4 (although it'd be hilarious if she actually typed "A-L-T-M").
20th May 2004
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: At the party, when Mickey, Randy and Sidney's friend (forgot her name - the one who's studying psychology) are talking about The Empire Strikes Back, the girl says that "these furry creatures were nice" and Mickey says: "Ewoks - no, they sucked" (or something). But Ewoks appear in The Return of the Jedi, not in The Empire Strikes Back. It may not be a goof, since Sidney's friend may not know Star Wars trilogy that well - however Mickey should.
Correction: She was just saying they were cute. She didn't have to know which movie they came from.
That's what the original post says, it takes exception to Mickey not correcting her. However, he just didn't have time to do that since she was walking away and there was really no point, they were not engaged in a debate, so I agree that it can be considered a bit too weak to be a character mistake.
17th Dec 2001
Scream 2 (1997)
Factual error: When Cici is about to be killed she throws the phone onto the floor without hanging up yet the killer calls her again and the phone rings. Surely it would be engaged if she had not hung up. (00:33:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Before she throws the phone on the floor, you can hear specifically the tone indicating that she pushed the button to end the conversation. The dramatic horror movie riff fires off right at that time so you may have to pay extra attention to pick up the sound before the string section assaults your ears, but the beep is there.
18th Feb 2013
Scream 2 (1997)
Continuity mistake: The killer throws Cici off the balcony facing the ground. In the next shot of her falling, she's flipped over on her back. (00:35:15)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
13th May 2007
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: When the blonde girl gets stabbed as the killer stabs the knife into her you can see he just slides the knife along her robe to give the appearance of getting "stabbed". This is also visible when he pulls the knife out of the blonde, cause no blood comes out with the knife or on the knife.
Correction: Blood doesn't immediately flow from a stab wound or cut. I sliced the palm of my hand to the bone with an X-acto knife, and it didn't bleed for at least 10 seconds due to shock. It bled a whole lot after that, but initially didn't bleed at all.
Supposedly it's a Deliberate Mistake because it mirrors what happens in Scream 1, which allegedly is a mistake fans kept pointing out to Wes Craven who then decided to replicate it in the spoof 'Stab'. However, this is one of those Trivia entries in IMdb and other places that feel like they're just rumors I'd like to find a source of; it's not in Wes Craven DVD commentary track, and 'Stab' was not directed by him anyway.
12th May 2004
Scream 2 (1997)
Plot hole: It is highly unlikely that the murderer knew Phil was going to put his ear to the stall when he heard the babbling. It is even more unlikely that the murderer is going to get him on the first stab through the stall. (Which also requires a lot of strength). We also have to assume that he spent time hanging out in the bathroom knowing Phil would go there to begin with, and that other two men with weak bladders were doing the same simultaneously forcing the victim to go to the stall to begin with. (00:07:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The killer is incoherently whispering in a strange way in the adjacent stall to lure Phil to press his ear up against it. After stabbing him through it, the killer inspects the knife inquisitively, as if checking to see if he actually got him. While it's still not a terribly plausible scene, the killer's demeanor suggests that he encountered Phil in the restroom by coincidence and improvised the kill, rather than anticipating all of Phil's actions as part of a perfectly executed plan.
The general logistics and planning of the murder are a separate issue - because no, the murder was planned. The entry just says that it's "highly unlikely", putting it mildly, that the killer could guess the exact position Phil would pick to listen to the noise. Just a few inches up or down, left or right, make a huge difference. The killer looks at the knife admiring the results, because if he had any doubts that he got his victim, he'd be trapped in a bathroom with a screaming, wounded, angry Phil and plenty people who could come and help.
To be more clear, the correction here is that Phil had heard strange talking/whispering rather than music, which makes it at least a little more plausible the killer would think he might put his head up against the wall at a certain spot. Unlikely for sure, but unlikely isn't a mistake, it's just what movies do. Phil's death was planned yes, though it stands to reason the plan was more "surveil and strike when vulnerable" and less "wait for him in this particular stall we know he'll be next to."
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.
27th Aug 2001
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: In the movie Stab, there are many details shown that the writer couldn't possibly have known. For example, when Sidney is talking to Billy, the conversation is practically word for word. Sidney didn't want Gale making the movie, so she wouldn't have told her what happened.
Correction: In the end of Scream, Sidney was thankful for Gale saving her life by shooting Billy during the final attack. Sidney most likely told Gale the whole story as a kind of compensation, which people do in movies and real life. Secondly, Sidney did not know about the movie, only the book which the movie was based upon, and there is no saying Sidney did not want Gale making the movie or the book. Sidney was only angry with Gale for setting up a reunion interview with Cotton Weary without her consent.
Assuming that Sid had a nearly perfect recollection of the conversation, the scene in "Stab" ends with him smacking his forehead and muttering to himself "Stupid" which is what happened in the first movie when Sidney already had left. She couldn't have reported that detail and the corridors were empty.
24th Jul 2012
Scream 2 (1997)
Other mistake: Maureen gets popcorn and a coke, yet doesn't pay for it. Nor does the cashier ask for money. (00:04:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: To be fair, she asked her boyfriend for some money, he gave her a note, which she holds in hand in that scene making her order and, almost certainly if we go by the arm movements, puts on the counter. If what she ordered required no change, nothing more was needed in the exchange. It's not as if she just went to the counter, didn't have any money with her, was fully on camera all the time and got her order sorted.
24th Nov 2008
Scream 2 (1997)
Continuity mistake: When Phil and Maureen enter the cinema, Phil puts his arm around Maureen's shoulder. But in the next shot his hand is placed on her back instead. (00:01:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
29th May 2007
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: Sidney is talking with Stu and Tatum at the lockers when someone runs by wearing the Ghostface mask. She runs down the hall, bumping into Billy, then goes into the bathroom and meets the killer. We know it isn't Billy because we just saw him, but how would Stu get into the bathroom without passing by Billy and Sidney?
Correction: It was made pretty clear that it was two other kids that ran through the hall. There is a scene with Henry Winkler (principal) who is expelling the two students due to the prank.
Yes, and that scene happens before the killer shows up in the bathroom, so it can't be them. Sidney also says that she knew it was really "him", the real killer, and not a prankster, and there's no indication that the movie wants her to be wrong at that time.
The "tell" is that the shot of Sidney running out of the restroom has a voiceover from a news reporter talking about pranksters dressed as the killer. Sidney is far from infallible (she even misidentified her mother's killer) and is vulnerable and being psychologically manipulated by Billy and Stu.
The biggest tell would be that he has no knife, but there's nothing prankster-like in that assault, if he tackled her like that he would have hurt her (and he's in the girls' bathroom too?). The newscast about the pranksters establishes that it's the authorities' version, but the dialogue I mentioned happens later, addresses exactly that, and she negates it. I agree that Sidney is not infallible, but the fact that she was wrong (by deliberate misdirection from the real culprit) about Cotton is a specific plot point, she was supposed to be wrong and Gale even picks up on the fact that she deep inside isn't sure about it anymore. Overall the bathroom scene is one of those scenes that don't quite add up but people enjoy making theories about them ("it was all in Sidney's mind", "it was Roman", etc).
I agree this is one of the film's weaker moments, but I don't think it's just an accident. The high school section was rearranged from the script and a couple moments dropped, and I believe it was decided during editing to make the restroom scene more ambiguous (adding the "killer's" grunts that sound younger than any of the characters; moving the reporter's monologue to the end of this scene) to make up for an unfilmed scene where Sidney encountered two more masked impostors in the school.
13th Mar 2005
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: In the house when Sidney is attacked for the first time, she runs into her bedroom and tries to call the police using her house phone. When she realises it's engaged (because the other house phone is off the hook), she tries to contact the police via her computer. The police subsequently turn up. Problem is she only got as far as the computer asking what her emergency was. She never stated that she needed the police, so (a) how did the emergency services know what service to send to her, and (b) how did they even know who the request was from?
Correction: 911 has the obligation to respond to every call, despite knowing who called. At times, a caller - or in this case, the typist - can't hang on the line to tell the operator what the problem is or what services are needed. Granted, fire and ambulance services should have also arrived, but that's another argument.
If it helps understand the scene a little better, the screenwriter mentions in the DVD commentary that originally there was a shot of the computer screen with her entering the address, which was, imagine that, "34 Elm Street." But they cut that part for time constrains (thankfully; it would have been terribly on the nose).
23rd Apr 2005
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Dewey and Gale are entering the house where the party takes place he talks to Sidney and says anything like "Hey Sidney" and she replies something like "Anything new about my father?". This is really strange because Dewey dropped Sidney and Tatum at the party about only 5 minutes ago. The conversation gives the impression that they have not talked to each other for a much longer time.
Correction: The reason she asks about her father is BECAUSE Dewey dropped them off five minutes earlier. He drops them off, then leaves (at least, Sidney thinks he leaves), and so when she sees him returning so soon she assumes some urgent news has come up.
She just saw him arrive being Gale Weathers' chaperone and acting all smarmy, if anything you could argue that she's being passive aggressive asking "Have you found my father?" (because that is the actual quote), as in "Why are you wasting time here then?" but that's not how the scene plays out either. The dialogue feels pointless and forced as the original entry described, in particular because she then asks "Should I be worried?", which is definitely a question that does not match the context.
28th Jun 2004
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: When the killer comes out of the house, and pulls the knife out of Dewey's back, look close, and you can see that although the knife was in his back very deep, it is totally clean. (01:23:45)
Correction: The killer pulls the knife out of his back and wipes it with the sleeve of his costume.It is certainly not clear enough to see the blade the second he pulls it out of Dewey's back.
2nd Apr 2007
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: After Sydney gets attacked at the beginning and is sitting in the back of an ambulance for police questioning, the ambulance says Bayshore, when Woodsboro is inland in California.
Correction: Bayshore is just the name of the ambulance company - it doesn't imply that the ambulance can only operate near a bay or a shore.
1st Apr 2007
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: When Sydney is in the police car, she picks up the radio and tells the police that somebody is trying to kill them. Not only does she give the name of the homeowners and the address, but she is attacked in the middle of her conversation, and screams. A few minutes later, Billy grabs her and says that it is a few minutes after midnight, exactly one year after they killed her mother. However, the police don't show until sunrise. What happened in the six hours?
Correction: Just because the last scene started at sunrise doesn't mean that's when the police just got there. They could have been there for hours before hand, shortly after Billy was killed. It sometimes takes the police 1/2 hour to an hour to get somewhere, so they were probably there shortly between the second to last and the last scene. Also, the call Sidney made in the car may not have officially gone through.
2nd Jul 2003
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: During the final scene in the house after Billy and Stu are revealed as the killers, Billy and Stu showed that they put a great deal of effort in planning the murders and the cover ups. But they seemed to forget their fingerprints. Their prints were on the cell phone and voice distorter they put in Mr. Prescott's coat pocket.
Correction: There are many ways to conceal fingerprints. One common way is to smear Elmer's glue on the tips of your fingers and let it dry. It is not easy to notice and effectively eliminates your fingerprints. Since they had to touch many things while committing the murders, but still had to appear as themselves, they very likely used a similar method.
Correction: It is also possible Billy and Stu forgot about it. They were obsessed with their plan they just didn't think it through.
Correction: They may well have planned to wipe the prints off after killing Sidney.
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: There is no mistake here. As Sidney leaves the dorms, we can see there are two sets of double doors, and it is the second set of doors that have the red stickers on them. In the inside shot we see Sidney pushing open the first set of doors, but when the shot changes to the outside of the building, Sidney is now pushing the second door which has the red sticker on it.
Hamster ★
"It is an entirely different door", as the entry says. Of course now it's matter of debate if you consider a continuity 'mistake' the fact that she's pushing the second door or just consider it a normal practice in editing, which shortens and smootherns the walk by doing a practically flawless transition with Neve Campbell's arm movement. The discernable breach of continuity is there when you look, but like many continuity 'mistakes' (the word can be so misleading, it's not as if we can read intent and tell) it actually benefits the pacing and the scene would be worse without it.
Sammo ★