Character mistake: Dissecting the chrysalis, Dr. Roden says that "Somebody grew this guy. Fed him honey and nightshade." Nightshade is indeed one of the typical plants eaten by the Death's head moth, but since "he" is only a pupa, would have not eaten honey, which is something only the adult specimen eats. (00:48:50)
KeyZOid
19th Mar 2020
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't see this so much as a mistake, but rather a shortcut so there would be no need to explain the entire metamorphosis process. Feeding "it" would refer to the larva stage, necessary to reach (grow to) the pupa stage. "It" may have transformed, but "it" is still the same "it." The men working there are experts and would know what he means, not interrupt and say, "Pupae don't eat, dumb @$$." Likewise, having to specifically say that someone fed the larva "honey and Nightshade" so that it would become that pupa doesn't seem to be necessary given the nature of the film. [And the larva - not just "adults" - might eat honey.].
Sorry, I don't really understand the point of the first part (like, 90%) of the correction; at no point I was disputing the concept of 'feeding a pupa', but just what it could have eaten to be raised to that stage. The only relevant part of your correction is that last phrase; "And the larva might eat honey." Which is not how it works from what I understand. If you want to correct this entry, please dispute that aspect; I never bred bugs (...on purpose!) and surely not of that kind, but the larvae of that species are strictly herbivores, and the honey plays into their diet only later in life - to the best of my knowledge they can't even process it at that stage. Assuming it can (which I have no particular reason to believe), it would be an exception and not what an entomologist would say to describe a well raised specimen. For what it is worth, also, Harris' novel never mentions honey, but specifically leaves, although it's a different plant.
Sorry if I misconstrued what you were trying to say. By writing that the pupa would not eat something only the adults eat, you left the impression that the pupa eats other things (just not the honey). I think I understand now. Your answer is specific to the honey and my response addressed how much information the experts needed to present about metamorphosis and food/no food to the audience. I hope this helps you understand at least some of that 90%.
4th May 2019
Unstoppable (2010)
Question: How are locomotives able to pull such long trains? Triple 777 pulls a 39 car train, which can weigh thousands of tons when the cars are loaded.
Answer: In the same way locomotives pull long trains in real life. Diesel engines are built to pull the weight. When it gets to a certain point you might need 2 engines.
OK but what is the physics behind how locomotives are able to pull so much weight?
I'm not sure on the physics but a quick Google search comes up with: Trains are really heavy, but to move a train, you only have to overcome the friction between the wheels and the [axles]*. But since there are wheels, it's even easier to move it. Imagine a really heavy box. You'd have a very hard time lifting it, but you could shove it a few millimeters horizontally. [But instead of shoving it, you can make it roll!]* The same thing applies to a train. Now, since the train is so heavy, it takes a long time to get it moving, and to slow it down, due to [inertia].
I'm not sure of the physics, either, but it is my (basic) understanding that having the wheels as well as the rails made of steel minimizes? the friction. [Living in the suburbs of the "Steel City" helped to know this!] I'd clarify your answer above by pointing out a train is comprised of numerous small cars - as opposed to being one very long car - so is somewhat easier to "get moving."
Answer: Locomotives are heavy. The heavier a locomotive, the more traction it has, and then it can pull more weight.
4th Apr 2019
Super 8 (2011)
Question: Alice wants to see her father die for all he did to her. How come Joe doesn't want the same for his father for all he did to him?
Answer: I don't believe Alice said she "wants to see her father die", and I'm not sure what you mean by "for all he [Mr. Dainard] did to her." Alice told Joe that SOMETIMES she wishes her dad would have died instead of Joe's mother. When Joe replied that she shouldn't say that because he is her dad, Alice got his point and did not continue to say anything else, such as that she really meant what she said. What did Alice's dad "do to her"? He did say she wasn't going to Joe's party (which she made up). He told her to go in the house and wanted Joe to leave. After Alice went to Joe's and tried to sneak back into the house after dark, Mr. Dainard told Alice to "leave", just like her mother did. As soon as Alice was out the door, Mr. Dainard immediately followed to get her back and suffered injuries trying to do so (but the "monster" got her). Alice probably didn't know her dad told Joe's dad (deputy) that he did not want Joe seeing his daughter again - she was "off limits."
What did Joe's dad (Mr. Lamb) "do to him"? He tried to get him to go to summer camp, but didn't make him. He said he wished Joe wouldn't hang around a certain friend (Cary) so much because he kept lighting things on fire - but didn't stop him. When Joe dropped a flashlight on the kitchen floor, his dad told him to pick it up. Mr. Lamb told Joe to make sure he fed their dog Lucy. Mr. Dainard made it clear inside the sheriff's station that Joe was not to be around Alice anymore, so when Mr. Lamb caught Joe with Alice on the street, he put Joe in the police car, took him home, and demanded that he stop seeing Alice and said they could not be friends. I don't see any behavior by Joe's dad that would make Joe want him dead.
9th Mar 2015
Good Will Hunting (1997)
Question: Why did Will lie about having twelve brothers? What did he think it would achieve? And why would someone as smart as Skylar believe it?
Chosen answer: It's just part of his personality. He had become used to keeping people at a distance and made up stories so they didn't know what he was actually like. There's no reason for Skylar not to believe him at first. Large families with ten or more children are not unheard of, particularly if the parents have been married more than once.
Answer: The judge pointed out that Will "went through several foster homes." Whether the foster parents had their own biological children and/or other foster kids, Will could have easily had twelve "brothers" who were the functional equivalent of biological brothers. Using his own operational definition of "brother", Will had twelve, so was not lying. However, using a more common definition of "brother", Will was not exactly telling the truth. Will can be said to have told her a "white lie" - only telling her what he wanted to and omitting the details. This can be a type of defense mechanism, giving her the impression that he - like almost everyone else - grew up in a family with his siblings. In a way, he was protecting himself by hiding the way in which he was raised. Because it wasn't typical for Will to become attached to whatever girl he was seeing, he saw no need to reveal his past (although, unknown to him at the time, this relationship would turn out differently than previous ones).
Why would she think that he was making up something like how many brothers he has? Not only did Will go through the names of his twelve "brothers", he was able to convincingly repeat the twelve names after she asked him to. IF he had not been able to quickly repeat a sequence of twelve boys' names, it would have been a giveaway that he was lying. Common sense was more significant than intelligence in discerning whether or not Will was telling the truth. (But common sense often does not match reality).
15th Jan 2019
Mystic River (2003)
Character mistake: When Jimmy kills Dave, he says that he killed Just Ray when his wife was pregnant with Brendan, but she was pregnant with Ray Jr (Brendan's brother).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Jimmy says pregnant wife, little Brendan.
Suggested correction: My father used to tell stories about his nieces and would constantly get their names mixed up. People often get siblings names switched around, and that is when they are in their right mind. Jimmy had been drinking, was still emotional over his daughter, and was telling the story with full intention of murdering Dave within minutes. Fully understandable that he would make this rather common error.
It might be understandable, but not so much within the context of this movie. Would the writer deliberately include in the script that a character will use the wrong name because it does happen sometimes in real life? Maybe if this were a movie about dementia or "Grumpy Old Men", but it doesn't seem to fit in this movie. [I know - not all elderly people have memory problems or lapses.].
13th Oct 2020
Grease (1978)
Question: Why didn't Sandy immediately telephone Danny when she found out she and her family were not going back to Australia, and that she would be attending his high school?
Answer: Perhaps Sandy didn't know the high school she would be going was the same as Danny's, so she didn't think to call him already, but wanted to do it later. It's all very vague about where it all come from. The point is she never thought she would see Danny again, just like Danny thought he would never see her again. With that in mind they might indeed not have exchanged phone numbers anyway so no way to contact each other.
Answer: Maybe they didn't exchange phone numbers.
Answer: Again, he had his reputation as a Ladies Man, he didn't want the gang to know, he was wimping out and had fall in love. Remember the song, "Summer Lovin" He told of scoring with a hot babe, while Sandy sang of true love.
Answer: I had an exchange student LIVE in my parents house for a month when I was in high school in 1990. I liked her a lot. We were the same age. We got along. I did not have her phone number when she left. Why? Because there was no way my father was letting me call France "long distance" in 1990. In 1959, I'm going to say that calling long distance was probably not on their radar as a viable option. Not to mention - realistically, when you're 17, and you never think you're going to see each other again because you're separated by continent, what would be the point of exchanging numbers?
This was a nice story, but has nothing to with answering the question. Sandy didn't live with Danny, so they would have exchanged local numbers, or at least Danny would have given Sandy his number if she didn't know the number where she was staying so they could call each other during the summer. For your story to be slightly comparable, the exchange student would have had live somewhere else. In that scenario you certainly would have given her your number and she wouldn't give you her number in France but where she was staying.
Answer: More than likely, based on Sandy's demeanor and adherence to etiquette, she would not have exchanged her number with a boy. She even said to Rizzo at the lunch table that she went to the beach to see a boy she met so most likely she and Danny would have made plans in person to meet up like they did.
14th Aug 2013
Red (2010)
Factual error: In the very first shot of the movie, a clock is shown ticking. The time on the clock reads 05:59:56. It is obviously AM because a few seconds later at 06:00:00, Frank wakes up as if it was morning. As Frank sits up, clear daylight is visible outside of the window. This scene is supposed to be set during winter. We know this because there are many Christmas decorations. Since this is meant to be winter, it should still be dark at that time of day. (00:00:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: At the beginning of the movie it's September or early October if latest in the year. At Cleveland's latitude there's enough sunlight at 6am to experience such lighting through a window facing south.
First, what in the film places the opening scene in Sept or Oct? There's too much snow on the ground for it to be either of those months (it doesn't snow in September and rarely in October, but only late October). Second, even if it was set in October, the sun doesn't rise until around 7:30AM or 8:00AM.
I disagree. I think what Bishop73 wrote above is correct. The opening scene at 6:00 AM showed daylight, which would be too early for October, November, and December in Ohio. The movie apparently begins in December based on the amount of Christmas decorations in the neighborhood. Sunrise might be between 7:30 - 8:00 AM and twilight is about 30 minutes prior to sunrise. It simply would not be that light out at 6:00 AM.
13th Dec 2018
Common mistakes
Corrected entry: Movies, and TV shows often treat jails and prisons as if they are the same thing. They're not. Jails are typically run by local law enforcement, and local government agencies, and are designed to hold inmates awaiting trial or serving short sentences for misdemeanor crimes. Prisons on the other hand are facilities typically operated by either a state government, the federal bureau of prisons. Prisons are designed to hold inmates serving longer term sentences for more serious crimes.
Correction: This is not necessarily a film/script mistake. Even the American English speakers, who have this distinction often speak in metonymy and metaphor a lot. For example, when they say "it won't make a difference when you go to jail", they really mean "it won't make a difference when the authorities catch you." It does not matter whether the culprit is sent to a jail, sent to a prison, incarcerated at home, receives capital punishment or is forced to pay fines and do community service.
I would agree that it is a common mistake. "Jail" and "prison" are often used interchangeably or incorrectly. The "Corrected Entry" above gives the basic distinctions between the terms and - more often than not - the word "jail" is used for both jail and prison.
24th Oct 2020
Home Alone (1990)
Corrected entry: If the water Kevin poured on the steps froze almost instantly, it would be too cold outside for the tar he put on some steps to still be soft and sticky enough to adhere to Marvin's feet.
Correction: The tarred steps are inside the house, in the basement. The temperature outside is irrelevant as far as they are concerned.
I was thinking it was done outside in the dark. Now I'd question if tar would stay that sticky - even inside a basement. When the temperature outside is below freezing, my basement is relatively cold.
18th Apr 2019
RV (2006)
Question: How did they get the RV out of the lake?
Answer: In the world of "make believe", they used "movie magic" to zap the RV out of the water and on to dry land - with no mechanical issues resulting from being submerged. In the real world, someone called a tow truck - perhaps AAA - and the RV was pulled out of the water and it suffered water damage and needed some repairs. This movie was presented as being "real life." Bob left on a bicycle to "try to find help." Near the end of the movie, Carl said that the RV "spent two days under water and they had to fish it out." He didn't say who "they" were. A fishing pole would not be strong enough to reel in a large RV, so I think it is safe to conclude that a tow truck was used to pull the RV out of the lake.
It should be noted that "fish it out" is a common phrase to mean pull or take out, especially after searching. When people use the term, they're never taking about using a fishing pole. But often when people post questions like this, they're asking for an in-film explanation in case they missed (or didn't understand) something. If no in-film explanation was given, a reasonable speculation can be given. You don't need to remind people the movie is a movie. If the in/film explanation is uncharacteristic to real life, then one can point out that in real life it wouldn't happen that way.
29th Jun 2004
Frailty (2001)
Question: The dad says Fenton is a demon, but demons were only people who have killed other people in their past, and Fenton hasn't killed anyone yet. It is later in the movie he kills his dad, so how did his dad know he was a demon?
Chosen answer: Paxton is obviously mentally deranged so he can call anyone a demon and find a way to justify it.
This answer is entirely incorrect. If you watch the film, you realise that it is only Fenton's belief that his father is insane. In the reality of the film, everything his father has told him is true. He is in fact a "demon killer." Since there is no explanation in the film as to what actually makes someone a demon, it's safe to assume the angel knew Fenton would grow up to become a serial killer. The father refused to believe his own son would be a demon, and so tried to force him to "see" the truth.
It really isn't "in the reality of the movie" - it is in the dad's psychotic mind (his warped sense of reality). What sane father, for example, would subject his children (preadolescents at that) to chopping people up with an ax, have them help dig graves and bury those killed, lock his 12-year-old son in a "dungeon" with no food and only one cup of water a day, check on his son after a week but nail the door closed again for another (apparently long) period of time? And I don't think Fenton became a serial killer - Adam was the serial killer (maybe of demons in his warped mind). The father seemed to assert that Fenton was a demon because he was not supporting him in killing people ("destroying demons"). Why didn't the father view Adam - who could be viewed as killing his own mother during childbirth - as a demon? Adam, being younger and more impressionable, agreed with the father but was also told they were like "superheroes" - what young kid could rationally discern the difference?
The cartoon shown on TV ("Davy and Goliath") offers additional evidence that the father was not destroying demons. "Davy" asks his father about God, and his father tells him that "God doesn't make you do anything" and wants you to decide. Even IF God or the angel sent someone a list of demons to destroy, it would be up to the person to decide whether or not to destroy the people. I know that the purported acts of the people that were killed were revealed when the dad (or Adam) put his hand (s) on them, and that viewers were then supposed to believe that they really were destroying demons, but the view that they were just hallucinating is still valid.
I think the movie allows the viewer to make his/her own conclusion - is the father really destroying demons or is he a cold-blooded murderer? There is sufficient reason to believe the father had a psychotic breakdown or something similar and, instead of destroying demons, was a serial killer. There was no evidence of any others being chosen by God to destroy demons, no indication that the world was coming to an end, and no reason to murder the sheriff who was leaving and said he didn't believe one bit of what Fenton told him about the killings. Besides, wouldn't God protect the father from the sheriff if He protected Adam from being detected by the FBI agents and cameras? For what it is worth, I disagree with the comment by Jason below and think your view is more accurate.
There are several important factors that show the father (and son) are actually fighting demons: The "help" they frequently receive, like ALL of the surveillance tapes not showing Adam's face when he's hunting a demon (This can hardly be dismissed as coincidence, as they all look fine except wherever Adam's face would be visible), the FBI agent at the end who inexplicably can't describe Adam and doesn't recognize him when they meet again, the fact that the victims are stunned after the father or Adam touches them with a bare hand to reveal their sins, etc.
I'm aware of all of those things, but videotapes used to do that - maybe if the FBI agents tried fixing the alignment his face would show. Adam looked different to me, too - his hair looked redder than when he was at the FBI office. Of course victims would be stunned and scared when a lunatic grabbed them. I do understand what you are saying, but I still don't think it is enough. Surely there were far more "demons" out there; the number of killings was relatively small. And, again, Davy said that God doesn't make anyone do anything - He wants the person to decide.
The point with the video tapes is that they say ALL of them are like the one, with the image only messed up across his face, and only when his face is visible. I suppose this is just an agree to disagree issue. You don't see these things as enough, while I see them all combined as more than enough. Interesting discussion of a good movie either way.
I was thinking of writing something like that to you! And now I can agree with something you wrote!
25th Feb 2020
General questions
I saw a movie years ago that had two main characters and there were background plots of someone stealing from (I think) the mafia and a serial killer on the loose. I think they ended up at a motel together and the twist at the end was that the one you thought was the killer was the thief and vice versa. I was sure it was called hatchet man but I can't seem to find anything about it.
Answer: Sounds like NATURE OF THE BEAST Starring Eric Roberts and Lance Hendrickson.
That's the one! Thank you.
Glad I could help. That's actually one of my favorite movies.
10th Sep 2020
Good Boys (2019)
Other mistake: If the Good Boys gave the cop the Molly in the vitamin bottle, where did they get the vitamin bottle they gave to the girls in the mall parking lot?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They got it from Benji when the girls dropped them off at the frat house.
31st Aug 2020
I Am Sam (2001)
Question: At Lucy's birthday party one of the kids says that Lucy said that she was adopted. Did Lucy really say this or was the boy lying?
Answer: Based on Lucy's reaction to and disbelief over the boy saying that she said she was adopted, it appears that Lucy did tell the boy she was adopted. Lucy was shocked and embarrassed over her father being informed of what she said. Lucy loves her father but has reached the age where she sees that he is "different from the other fathers." She is sensitive over her friend calling her father a "retard" and mocking him by repeating some things he says, such as "Sorry Mr. Egg."
3rd Dec 2018
Common mistakes
Factual error: Rainfall in movies and television is almost always depicted as a sudden and heavy downpour (sometimes cued by a crack of thunder and/or lightning strike) as opposed to gradually building up to it. This is pretty rare in real life.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Cloudbursts and showers are that way, and they are pretty common in some areas, specially near mountains. I don't know about New York but in several Latin American countries they are not eyebrow rising worth.
I'd add that along with the rain suddenly pouring, it falls in straight lines - with the exact same distance between streams - that are perpendicular to the ground. (All rainfall is vertical, never at an angle).
8th Jan 2020
Common mistakes
Corrected entry: Characters that are supposed to be blood relatives, but have no familial resemblance.
Correction: Blood relatives do not always resemble each other.
That's not really a "common mistake", though since it's never a mistake to have blood relatives that do not resemble each other.
I mostly agree. Family members often look too different to be biologically related. Even if an effort is made, for example, to have a son look like his father, some things don't sync - like a different face shape/bone structure or skin tone (not due to tanning). One example of father/son dissimilarities are in The War of the Worlds - the boy playing Tom Cruise's son has a completely different facial shape/structure. Regarding skin tone, in Boyhood the sister of Mason has a different skin tone than the rest of the family - and it stands out.
I'm probably a bit sensitive to this since my family members don't all have a strong resemblance to each other, but it's absolutely possible, especially if your family tree is diverse in genetics/ appearance. It happens more often than not in movies, but it's not a mistake. (And who's to say that in many of these cases people weren't adopted?).
12th Nov 2019
Good Boys (2019)
Question: I don't understand Max's punishment. In the ending, Max says "a month in the hole", but his father tells him that birthdays, holidays, and summers are cancelled. He also tells his son that "the devil lives inside him", to no longer call him "Dad", takes away his electronics, locks him in his room, and says that he will always love him, but no longer likes him. So, is Max grounded for life or is it "a month in the hole"? Are his birthdays, holidays, and summers really cancelled? And does anyone else find this ending to a comedy actually depressing because of the way Max's father treats him in the end?
Answer: Max's dad probably over-reacted out of anger/rage over the drone and destroyed room and might have made changes after he cooled off. Plus, it was meant to be humorous. A "month in the hole" was immediately imposed; no more birthdays, holidays, summer, etc. would refer to after the month in the hole. Max's dad did not say he couldn't attend school-related events, such as the "Rock of Ages" show. Parents are supposed to give their kids unconditional love. A father can continue to love his son while disliking his behavior. Max's dad may have been unduly harsh (again, out of anger), but he still loves Max - which shouldn't be depressing. I don't think Max's dad said he was grounded for life, just grounded. However, Lucas told his parents that Max was grounded for life - an exaggeration.
So, even after being grounded for a month, he can't celebrate his birthday or summer vacation?
Not necessarily. Max's dad said those things in the heat of the moment. Although it is possible that Max's dad meant what he said (at least at the time), it isn't probable. The severity of the punishment given to Max was a reflection of how angry Mr. Newman was. A proud and loving father who tells his son "I will always love you..." is more likely to forgive Max so that they can return to their good father/son relationship.
Answer: He is grounded for a month, although he cannot have birthday parties or summers or anything.
So, even after being grounded for a month, he can't celebrate his birthday or summer vacation?
It's entirely understandable that Max's dad is totally peed off with Max for what happened with the drone and accidentally thrashing the house and probably said a lot of what he did in the heat of the moment. To totally deny the kid a vacation is one thing (and makes sense considering the grounding is for a month as the time frame is around that time of year) but a birthday as well? What the dad probably meant was no birthday party (and no fun) for that year, its not like four years later and "we're not going on vacation this year because you did something stupid when you were 12."
And Mr. Newman saying, "No more summers" is probably meant to be an exaggeration to get across to Max the authority he has over him and ability to stop him from engaging in fun activities. Similarly, Mrs. Newman said, "Winter is coming!" The restrictions they put on Max might make him feel as though there are no fun, sunny, carefree days. The parents obviously cannot CHANGE what season it is, but they can impose restrictions that will make him feel as though it is a different season.