Plot hole: Derek, who escaped the mental hospital by pretending to be his twin brother Tyler, was able to locate Tyler's vehicle by using the keys to beep its horn. Once inside the SUV, he apparently found Tyler's cell phone, which is odd because most people carry their cell phones with them. But Derek did not ask Tyler for his cell phone's password before rendering him unconscious - so how did he gain access to the cell phone without the password? (It isn't likely that Tyler previously gave it to him). (00:20:40)
KeyZOid
6th Nov 2022
The Twin (2017)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Tyler never left his cell phone in the car. He had with him when visiting Derek. We see him pull out his cell phone to show Derek a picture, so the phone was already unlocked, assuming he locks it with a password in the first place.
I haven't had time to finish posting the rest of the mistakes I have, but I just uploaded two that should show up under "pending submissions." They probably should have been posted before the one above. I suppose the real question is where the cell phone came from each time.
16th Oct 2022
Forrest Gump (1994)
Question: Forrest's mother doesn't want him at a "special school", where he would learn "how to re-tread tires." What does that mean? Would a school for mentally disabled children also be a vocational/trade school?
Answer: In the past, (perceived) "dumb" students were more likely to be placed into vocational rather than academic programs because it was assumed they had limited ability and would not "amount to much" in life (make much of themselves). Therefore, they could at least be trained to perform something almost anyone could do with little or no training. Once someone is trained how to re-tread tires, for example, he should be able to repeatedly do the same thing everyday for years and be "productive." A variation of re-treading tires was learning how to make "birdhouses and ashtrays" - non-essential products in society that some people still might want to buy.
More recently, the trend has been to "mainstream" such students - keep them in classes with their peers.
11th Aug 2021
Tom Clancy's Without Remorse (2021)
Factual error: After the investigation the barrier tape (crime scene tape) would have been taken down. Also, there is no reason to have barrier tape inside a residence if the outside is already marked. (00:29:28 - 00:30:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There could be legitimate uses of crime scene or barricade tape inside of a structure, such as roping off an area that forensics has not yet got to or finished. There might be a lot of officers walking through the house, so the tape could be used to restrict their movement to prevent contamination of evidence. As a warning that only authorized personnel may enter, news reporters and others would know to stay out.
Good suggestion but wrong. If that was still an active crime scene there would have been officers outside standing guard to make sure no-one will/can go inside. BTW: Retired SAPD.
I don't doubt that your former SAPD had a particular procedure, but not all police departments follow the same procedures and there are often gaps between theory and practice. Furthermore, many law enforcement agencies make a distinction between "outer perimeter" and "inner perimeter." The inner perimeter (typically where physical evidence has been located) may be taped off with additional yellow tape, but the trend has been toward using red tape to make it more distinguishable from the yellow.
I don't know where you are getting your information but I also don't know what every agency use in the United States. From those I have seen (26yrs with the SAPD) I have only seen black on yellow. Red on white or blue on white is usually European. Like you said: "many law enforcement agencies", well we didn't and that is what I am basing my experience and expertise on. We only use 1 outer perimeter barrier that was manned by officers and they checked everyone before going inside the perimeter.
17th Sep 2022
General questions
I need help with the title of a book my teacher read to my class in 5th grade, circa 1995. The only details I remember were it taking place in either the North or South Pole, and the main character killed a polar bear by shooting it in the head.
Answer: It may or may not help, but polar bears don't live in Antarctica (the South Pole).
Answer: If you aren't recalling the details, the only movie (and book) around this time period that I can think of is "Alaska" (1996), starring Vincent Kartheiser and Thora Birch. But Vincent did not shoot a polar bear - a poacher shot a mother polar bear and the baby followed the kids while they searched for their father who had wrecked his plane.
I've never seen the movie Alaska, but the book in question feels like it was probably more of a survival story rather than an adventure. The only additional detail I can give is that the teacher assigned us to draw a scene from the book, and since the protagonist shot the polar bear in the head, many of the boys in the class, myself included, decided to draw that scene, complete with exaggerated gore.
"Alaska" was about survival.
I wonder if your teacher may have deliberately altered some information (e.g, the boy shooting the bear) to make the story more relevant and provocative to the grade level and whatever discussion questions that were given?
I've only seen the Nostalgia Critic's review of it, but wasn't it about the father's survival while his children were on an adventure of sorts to rescue him? Again, I'm not familiar with the "Alaska" book, but it seems like the protagonist for my book was an adult male and it was told from his point of view.
27th Aug 2022
The Black Phone (2021)
Character mistake: In the very beginning at the baseball game the runner is running to second base and the fielder doesn't even try to tag him out. Just runs right by him and gets the ball to the pitcher. (00:00:53)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The center fielder missed the ball and the right fielder got it. The second baseman was at the border of the infield and outfield and the right fielder may not have noticed that the short stop moved to cover second base. By this time, the players might have been more concerned over the opposing team scoring a run because a player had advanced to third base. It was a "revealing" mistake or overall "stupidity" by the team as each player was playing "musical positions" more so than good baseball.
With regard to "revealing", the players may have been instructed to be active on the field and cover bases for each other as needed and this was the "mess" they produced.
Suggested correction: Baseball players make mental errors all the time, even major leaguers.
I've watched the scene a few times and can't agree or disagree with the mistake, but it certainly doesn't look like a mental error one would see in a game, even a little league game. It just looked like two kids were given directions what to do and the timing might have been off and the director on set didn't bother changing it. (I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with the correction either, just making a statement to help others decide).
4th Sep 2022
Primal Fear (1996)
Character mistake: The archbishop wears a red zucco on his head at the dinner. Purple is the color of a bishop or archbishop. Red is the color of a cardinal.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Generally true, but the specifics are not straightforward. The problem lies in the interpretation of "purple." Depending on the source, the purple may actually be "amaranth red" (which is a reddish-purple, but may look more like fuschia) or "magenta" (which may appear to be a reddish-purple or a purplish-red). Magenta is an equal mixture of red and blue, so the result should look somewhere between red and purple. How these colors or blends are perceived on screen may vary with the tint setting.
Also, it may be possible that the more reddish-looking zuccetto was meant to be and match the choir's red.
28th Aug 2022
General questions
When any movies are shown on television, why are non offensive lines dubbed with another line? Ex. In the movie *batteries not included, Carlos says to Frank, "You kill my head, man." When the movie appeared on TV, the line was changed to, You make me sick, man."
Answer: Agree with the other answer, but specifically to your example, phrases like, "You kill my head, man," while inoffensive regarding sex or profanity, could be considered problematic due to constant mass shootings and a concern about inciting violence. In other cases, some dialogue may be changed because it is now recognized as being socially and culturally offensive to women, disabled people, certain ethnic groups, and others.
Answer: It's often done so the movie can air on television and be presented to younger audiences. Ex. In the 1984 Ghostbusters film, Bill Murray says, "I'll sue your ass for wrongful prosecution," but the first time I saw it on TV (in the 80's) the line was now, "I'll sue your funny face for wrongful prosecution."
And to make the words more easily understood - "You kill my head, man" may have ambiguous meaning, but "You make me sick, man" is more straightforward.
Answer: To add the answers, generally movie studios provided edited films for TV airing. This not only includes dubbing lines that may be offensive, but deleting inappropriate scenes, editing for time, and formatting. Sometimes studios will add scenes if too many scenes were deleted to add time. The example you gave is from a 1987 film where standards are different from today. But the network or studio isn't going to re-release a newly edited version for today's audience. And it's unlikely the network would be able to play the original film without any edits.
20th Feb 2018
Holes (2003)
Corrected entry: Stanley's parents say they can't afford a lawyer, and go to court without one. A lawyer should've been provided for them free of charge, as it's one of your rights, which he would've been read when he was arrested.
Correction: After Stanley's grandfather says that they cannot afford a lawyer, Stanley's mother says, "we don't need a lawyer, Stanley will just tell the truth." Although Stanley does have the right to counsel, you can represent yourself in court, (or in this case if you are a minor, your parents can represent you in court) this is called "pro se."
Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect, "He who acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client." Yes, one can act as his/her own attorney, but the court/judge will generally strongly advise against doing so.
Yeah, it's never advisable and the court and judge will advise against it, but won't force it. Clearly, they did not want a lawyer, as they did not believe it was necessary, that's why there isn't one.
20th May 2022
Dune (2021)
Corrected entry: It is questionable if there can be "sandstorms powerful enough to cut through metal." The year may be 10191 and "Arrakis" unknown to contemporary society, but the sandstorms would have to be at least comparable to the capabilities of modern day SAND BLASTERS that might do that type of damage operating at 1,000 MPH. IF the sand storms were that powerful, the people probably could not survive them. (00:05:50)
Correction: It's just hyperbole, like when someone says, "The sleet was cutting like daggers." It's meant to emphasize how powerful and dangerous the sandstorms are, not that the sand could literally cut metal.
That's not the impression I got. There would be too much of a gap between cutting skin/flesh from bones (already not very likely) to cutting through metal. Such an exaggeration would not be necessary.
Even if not hyperbole, it might be that the sandstorms can cut through/wear down metal over time, possibly quite a short time, making it a technically accurate statement. They don't say they can cut through metal instantly or like a knife through butter.
18th May 2022
A Day to Die (2022)
Trivia: Willis' LAST film that will be released. It was filmed about a year before the 4/04/22 announcement that he was diagnosed with aphasia (a type of frontotemporal dementia that affects the ability to speak, write, and understand written language) and "stepping away from acting."
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I'm not sure what you mean by this is his last film to be released when 3 films have been released since "A Day to Die" came out. Not to mention 2 upcoming films set to be released shortly. Plus, Willis had finished 3 Lionsgate films whose releases are unknown.
Fake news? I read this somewhere on-line.
6th Jun 2017
Midnight Special (2016)
Question: In the very last scene, we see Michael Shannon in shackles (presumably in a federal prison) with electroencephalographic sensors attached to his forehead and scalp, oddly gazing at the sunrise as two prison guards flank him. In the very last shot of the film, a closeup of his face, we see his eyes faintly glow for a split-second as he smiles a very slight smile. Question: Is the film implying that Alton is in otherworldly contact with his father, or that his father absorbed some of Alton's otherworldly power; or is it implying that, being the boy's biological father, he was the source of Alton's power? In any event, this may never be revealed, because the film barely made back one-third of its $18 million production budget, making the probability of a sequel highly unlikely.
Answer: I wasn't sure what to make of it, but I got the impression that he was communicating with Alton like he had done when Alton ran from the truck. I also thought his smile was perhaps in reaction to what Alton told him and/or the two were making fun of (mocking) the use of electrodes because they knew the electrodes would not have any effect on him.
P.S. Plenty of lousy movies have had sequels, so it is possible there could be a "Midnight Special 2".
Not necessarily holding my breath.
A sequel doesn't seem likely. Hope you weren't holding your breath waiting for an answer to your question.
26th Nov 2021
Titanic (1997)
Question: Pardon me for asking a "what if" question, but this confuses me: what did Rose intend to do *before* the ship sunk? She had changed her mind about Jack, choosing him instead of Cal. However, she and her mother needed the security from Cal. They were in debt. Jack was poor. If Rose married Jack, Cal and his family would be offended by the broken engagement. They would not help Rose's mother. Would Rose just marry Jack and abandon her financially-burdened mother in New York?
Answer: Rose was strong-minded and determined but was thinking "in the moment" and had no real plan or idea about what to do if she'd left with Jack, had he survived. It's unknown if they would have stayed together and married. Rose had only told Jack she was going with him. At some point she might reconnect with her mother. Cal Hoxley probably would be so humiliated by Rose deserting him for a penniless artist, that he would have hushed it up and invented some story about the broken engagement. He likely had already paid off the DeWitt Bukater debts to clean-up any lingering complications or embarrassments before marrying Rose. He probably would also have made some minimal financial arrangement for Ruth, not from compassion but for appearances sake. As we saw, Rose faired quite well on her own once she did escape Cal and her mother.
Answer: That was her plan, assuming she would have been able to follow through with it. This would have left her mother high and dry, but that didn't seem to be a very big concern for her. However, in reality, between Cal, Lovejoy, and Ruth, Rose would find it very hard to even see Jack, much less marry him, if the Titanic had made it to New York in one piece. Women had very few legal rights in 1912, so once the marriage was performed, Cal could pretty much keep her imprisoned, for all intents and purposes, and Jack could do nothing about it, even if he wasn't a penniless vagrant...which he was.
Your last statement about Cal pretty much being able to keep Rose imprisoned has no factual basis. Women still had many legal rights, and while some states had more liberal divorce laws, by 1915, 1 in 7 marriages ended in divorce. By the 1920's, it had risen to 15%. Not to mention that in 1917, New York had given women full suffrage.
"Imprisonment" might be too strong of a word to use, but cultural norms at the time (such as those regarding marriage, the role of the wife/ homemaker, and divorce - taboo) didn't give women much freedom. Divorce statistics are notoriously inaccurate and, depending on the method used to calculate the number, percent, or rate, different figures are derived. Instead of 15%, the RATE of divorce (per 1000 PEOPLE) was 1.7 in the 1920s. Women's suffrage is hardly an indication of freedom, rights, or equality. [Just think how "effective" the 14th Amendment (1868) was in granting equal legal and civil rights.].
Regardless of any restrictions on "married" women, Rose was not yet wed to Cal. They were only engaged, and he had no legal right to impose anything on her at that point. If Rose wanted to walk off the ship with Jack, there was nothing Cal or her mother could legally do to stop her. If they tried to interfere, Rose could have the ship's officers or the White Star Line's personnel intervene.
30th Nov 2021
The Toybox (2018)
Other mistake: The RV's cassette player has some odd features (some of which I've never seen on a cassette player). There's a "push button" for "loudness", not "volume." There is another "push button" labeled "MO ST" - not sure what these mean. The slot for the cassette tape looks wide enough for a VHS tape. (00:11:15)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's nothing wrong with the stereo. The cassette slot is the normal size for that configuration on an 80's cassette car stereo (they're in an '87 Suncrest). The loudness button was also a common feature for that era. It boosts low and high frequencies at lower volumes (the stereo still has a volume knob). MO stands for "mono" and ST stands for "stereo."
The slot looked way too wide, even for the 1980s. I would have guessed that the "ST" meant stereo, but wouldn't that be referring to the AM/FM radio, not the cassette player? (Thanks for the "MO" clarification). [Features were still on the odd side.].
1st Oct 2021
Malignant (2021)
Factual error: It is not possible to have a conjoined twin of the opposite sex. They are similar to identical twins, which are always of the same sex, in that they are formed from a single zygote. In the case of conjoined twins, the zygote fails to divide normally.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There are always exceptions to the rules and, although VERY rare, it IS possible for conjoined twins to be - rather, end up being - different sexes. There are about 10 documented cases. In one case, is my understanding the conjoined twins started out as males but a genetic mutation (or something) occurred and one male lost his Y chromosome, thereby developing into a female with no ovaries. (The now-female twin would have so-called Turner Syndrome.) I don't have any sources to quote off-hand.
The male would have lost his Y chromosome after the zygote "split", but he was a monozygotic male.
29th Dec 2020
A Very Brady Christmas (1988)
Trivia: All the original main cast members were in this movie except Susan Olsen ("Cindy"). Jennifer Runyon took her place. Two possible reasons that Susan/Cindy didn't participate: filming conflicted with her honeymoon to Jamaica and she was offered less money than the other cast members.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: According to all sources, it was just the first answer (the honeymoon reason). No confirmation anywhere about being paid less.
You should do some actual research before correcting people so you know what you're talking about. Olsen herself said in a 1993 interview about why she wasn't in the movie. "It came down to money and bad politics. I was asking for way less than the two other girls wanted, but they still wouldn't give it to me." Plumb and McCormick even tried to get Olsen paid a fair amount, but the show's creators wouldn't budge and started a look for a look-alike.
Yeah, right... it is never about the money.
17th Jan 2006
Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003)
Continuity mistake: When Ms. Heller is talking to the tour guide at the museum, she offers her a $5 bill to take the tour twice. How the bill is folded and held changes. When Ms. Heller says do the tour twice it's pinched between her fingers, then it's folded in half. It keeps switching between folds. (00:35:19)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I didn't see it folded at all. The "other half" or part of the $5 bill that you can't see is actually squished/crumbled in the palm of Heller's hand.
The mistake is partially valid, its position changes. You seem to be talking about when she has the $5 and camera in her hand. When she says do the tour twice, it's pinched between her fingers, then in the next shot, it's folded in half, then she's pinching the end and the other end is unfolded, then back to folded in half.
Regarding the "folded in half" - the $5 bill is folded, but VERTICALLY. The differences that are shown appear to be deliberate SLEIGHT OF HAND. Heller is flashing the whole $5 bill at first, then crumbles it (symbolizing it "going away"). By having the $5 folded vertically, Heller was able to quickly fan out the left side (part equivalent to a flat $5 bill), then hold the $5 to resemble a bow tie. Folded vertically, the $5 bill could be manipulated to look different and more or less appealing.
She never crumbles the $5 bill during the part the mistake occurs. The way she's holding the bill changes between shots, meaning no time elapses, so there can be no deliberate sleight of hand.
Or would that be HORIZONTALLY? The $5 bill is folded to be long, not short, if this clarifies what I'm trying to say.
11th Aug 2021
Battleship (2012)
Factual error: When Hopper is running from the convenience store you can see Rite Aid in the background. You also see Honolulu police cars in the same scene. There isn't a Rite Aid in Honolulu.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not sure about this one. Honolulu is on Oahu, so I'm not sure what the police cars correction is, and there are Rite Aid stores on Oahu, and in Honolulu.
Where is (or at least was in 2012) the Rite Aid in Honolulu?
Rite Aid stores are in 18 states, and Hawaii is NOT one of them. I even went to the Rite Aid website and used the "store locator." When I wrote "Honolulu", the result was "no stores within 50 miles." (This would be currently, so the question below about 2012 remains unanswered).
27th Dec 2018
Common mistakes
Stupidity: Ground troops armed with semi-auto handguns, automatic rifles and even heavy artillery just keep wasting ammo, barrage-after-barrage, magazine-after-magazine, against giant robots and monsters 100 feet tall, long after it becomes obvious that the weapons have zero effect. This is an ongoing stupidity dating back to some of the earliest giant monster movies, and is still seen in giant monster and superhero films today.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Surely in the face of a no-win scenario, doing something that may or may not work is better than doing nothing and awaiting your doom. They would be doing everything they could to stop the enemy in the hopes of saving lives. Even if it takes every last round of ammunition, it may eventually be enough to wear down the monster / robot etc.
I hate to disagree. I think one of the best examples is the latest Godzilla movie where they keep firing their hand guns on it knowing it would be better to just get out, there was absolutely no point to do that. Same goes for Man Of Steel.
In everything from old Godzilla movies to modern superhero and kaiju flicks, we see military forces line up and throw every bit of small arms and heavier artillery they have at the giant monsters or giant robots, with zero effect. The military always retreats, regroups, then lines up and wastes all their ammunition again, as if they learned absolutely nothing from the first experience.
In a no-win scenario, you beat a hasty retreat and live to fight another day, hopefully better armed and better prepared next time. You don't hold your ground, futilely trying to bring down a giant monster the size of a Hilton Hotel with small arms fire.
It's strange because I can understand why filmmakers still do this, even though it makes little sense. They are trying to show that the monster, robot, whatever is unstoppable by conventional means and honestly I don't know how you would do that without these kinds of scenes. Even though they are dumb. It's extra dumb to me when you hear the General yell "Stand your ground, men!" or something like that. Or when the cop runs out of bullets and throws his gun.
I've seen too many scenes where they keep shooting, apparently to no avail, BUT there is always the chance that hitting the "monster" in a certain spot could get it to retreat. Instead of just continuing to rapidly fire with the general intent of hitting the monster, it would make much more sense to focus on a possible soft spot, such as an eye. The "just keep firing" mentality does fall under "stupidity." The military should be using a strategy that is rational, and emptying machine guns isn't.
10th Nov 2021
Eternals (2021)
Corrected entry: Cell phone service in the middle of the Amazon jungle? This scene is shown as "present day." Cell phone service in the jungle is not very probable. (01:11:20)
Correction: I do fundamentally agree, but feels more like a minor 'stupidity' of the movie; the movie itself does address the point with Kingo asking Sersi who's their phone carrier since his is dead, and the convo does break in the end. There is a close-up of the phone during their talk, I believe the logo of the brand is not visible but I could be wrong - it would surely have been a great opportunity for product placement, with that kind of quality.
27th Oct 2021
Married... with Children (1987)
Plot hole: In this episode Al is about to break Puggy Weaver's record. Peg decides to bowl and scores a perfect score of 300. Problem is Peg is a horrible bowler, as seen in season 2 episode 9. She never bowls with Al or even enjoys bowling, so this episode really makes no sense.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is not a plot hole, but a plot point. Yes, Peg is a horrible bowler, but it's typical Al Bundy luck that his wife would be able to put together a perfect game no matter how unlikely.
So this one and only episode she scores a perfect game? Highly unlikely. Oh and she's wearing a long evening dress too which would make it difficult to bowl. So this episode makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. In the world of the show, the universe is out to screw Al over. The worst that can possibly happen to him will happen no matter how unlikely.
It is a comedy, so having all those "strikes" against her, she still managed to bowl a perfect game - leaving Al hopeless and hapless.