Question: Randy says that the police would save time if they watched "Prom Night". I saw that movie a while ago, but I don't understand what he means. Can someone explain?
TonyPH
18th Sep 2023
Scream (1996)
26th Aug 2018
The Omen (1976)
Question: Something that puzzles me about the thee Omen films taken together. In the first film of the series the very young Damien is taken into a church. As the son of the Devil he has a great aversion to all things Christian, so he has a huge tantrum, and screams, struggles and resists going into the building. So how is it, that, as the series progresses, he can enter Christian buildings without any ill effects? (The denouement of the third and final Omen film is set in Fountains Abbey, a venerated Christian church in Yorkshire).
Answer: It may be similar to myths around vampires. In many variations, their fear of crucifixes is purely psychological. As a child, Damian may have feared the symbolism of the church, but as he grew he realised it had no actual power over him.
Answer: There's no clear-cut answer. The first film was intended as a stand-alone movie. When the later sequels were made, the plot details were changed or otherwise adapted to fit a new story line.
A quick addendum to this correction: There was indeed a general idea from the start that the Omen could spawn a trilogy of movies, though there weren't detailed plans, and the first film was written so that it could function fine as a stand-alone movie if they never got around to sequels.
28th Mar 2014
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Other mistake: When Sulu tells Kirk he is coming to help, he states the Excelsior is currently in the Alpha Quadrant. The problem is the the Alpha Quadrant in the Star Trek universe is one quarter of the total Milky Way Galaxy. While technically correct, Sulu giving his position as in the Alpha Quadrant is useless to Kirk in terms of knowing when to expect help. It doesn't matter where Khitomer is in the galaxy. Sulu saying he is in the Alpha Quadrant gives Kirk absolutely no idea of when he will arrive. He could be anywhere from 5 minutes away to 5 weeks away or even further. Remember, it was originally projected to take Voyager 70 years to go from the Delta Quadrant back to the Federation in the Alpha Quadrant.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The implication is that Excelsior has only very recently crossed the border from the Beta Quadrant to the Alpha Quadrant.
Even if that "implication" were true (and there's nothing dialogue-wise to indicate such) it's still useless to Kirk as to when the expect help. The dividing line between the Alpha and Beta is fully half the width of the galaxy.
Sulu doesn't expect Kirk to deduce where the Excelsior is, he tells him directly that they're unlikely to make it in time, and the reason is that they are "now in Alpha Quadrant" i.e. they were previously not in the Alpha Quadrant, i.e. they're far enough away that recently they were in a whole other quadrant of the galaxy. (I agree it's an awkward line, but it makes sense if you think of it like "I'm now in the U.S." if it's known you already live there - it means you've just returned).
18th Feb 2007
The Monster Squad (1987)
Plot hole: The army showing up at the end of the movie is wrong on numerous levels. 1) Eugene wrote and sent out the letter that day. I find it hard to believe the mailed letter got to the army in just a few hours time. 2) How did the army know to show up at time square? When Eugene wrote the letter, nowhere did it say where to meet. Plus the boys didn't decide to go to time square until the last minute. 3) since when is the army deployed to battle monsters based on a letter that was written by a child?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The army's arrival being unrealistic is a very deliberate joke, like the armadillo-rats from earlier in the movie.
I submitted a category change to "Factual Error" to help cover this. It is indeed too deliberate to be a true plothole, but it is nonetheless amusing to point out all the ridiculous ways this humorous scene defies believability.
29th May 2009
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: When Luke asked Leia if she remembers her real mother she said she does but she died when she was very young. Her mother died during child birth. How can Leia remember what her mother looked like?
Answer: Leia most likely knew she was adopted as she had no reaction to Luke asking about her "real mother." I believe the correct answer here is George Lucas hadn't planned on Leia's mother dying during childbirth when this scene was written and at that time Leia genuinely had faint memories of her real mother. This was later shown to be impossible when the prequels were made.
Answer: She is referring to Padme. I believe she actually replies 'not really' when asked what her mother looked like. Also, Leia was a senator at some point, like Padme. It is likely she would have seen a painting or senator entry.
She most likely didn't know Padme the senator was her mother, because that would mean Anakin/Darth Vader would therefore have the same knowledge. She most definitely knew she was adopted. The "not really, just feelings" (paraphrased) line was "ret-conned" to fit when the newborn twins were shown in Episode III. Luke's eyes were shut, while Leia's eyes were open-she "saw" her mother. Perhaps the Force gave her a more mature feeling/insight into her mother from the brief time between pregnancy and when she was spirited away to Alderaan and her adoptive family.
Chosen answer: The mother Leia refers to would be Queen Breha Organa of Alderaan. At this point, Leia has no idea that she was adopted.
Negative. Luke specifically says "your real mother." Nowhere is it said Leia didn't know she was adopted. It's also highly unlikely she didn't know, since her adoptive father was a high-profile governmental figure and no way would the press keep a tight lip on the Bail and his wife suddenly having a baby without any signs of pregnancy.
Bail Organa says "We've always wanted a daughter." It wouldn't make sense to tell the daughter they've adopted in order to hide her from Vader "Oh yeah, you're adopted but don't tell anybody because the Emperor would send Vader to hunt you down." Better to just let her think you're her real parents.
Just because Leia knows she's adopted doesn't mean she has any idea who exactly her birth mother was, aside from her apparent memories. The Organas may well have concocted a whole cover story about her birth parents for another layer of protection over her identity. In fact, the way both Luke and Leia casually use/accept the "real mother" term suggests that not only does Leia know she's adopted, it's actually fairly common knowledge.
Answer: The short answer is that we don't know and it's left a mystery for the viewer. But on the flip side the lack of concrete information does leave room for numerous possibilities: One is that Leia might simply be mistaken: she had dreams of an idealized mother figure that she mistook for memories. Another is that the Organas could've lied to Leia about who her birth mother was for her own protection, and she is recalling this decoy mother (I quite like the theory that they told Leia her birth mother was one of Padme's loyal bodyguards chosen for their resemblance to her). And of course there's always the possibility there's something supernatural going on: Leia is strong with the Force and doesn't know it, and Padme's fate was so inexplicable you could theorize she didn't even really "die" so much as her spirit simply left her body.
8th Oct 2022
Brainstorm (1983)
Corrected entry: A device that works by reading the human brain wouldn't record the afterlife as that by definition transcends human bodily experience and occurs in another plane of existence. The movie could clear this if at any point the characters acknowledged they'd accidentally created a supernatural device that doesn't actually work the way they thought it did at all, but as is the story seems to confuse the human mind (which is dependent on the physical brain) with the human soul.
Correction: The device actually does cease to record anything once the user has died and all brain activity has ended: it's not that the device itself can suddenly see into "the other side" somehow, but rather it's picking up the brain's experience in the midst of death, whether induced by spiritual means or simply a dream-like interpretation by the mind.
Correction: This is a fictional device that operates exactly as the filmmakers say it does. Whether it works as you think it should is irrelevant.
This is 100% true, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a plot hole, it just means the audience doesn't mind that it doesn't strictly make sense.
29th Apr 2004
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Corrected entry: Doesn't it strain credulity that the Enterprise is (once again) "the only ship in the quadrant"? In Star Trek terminology (all series), a quadrant covers one fourth of the galaxy (smaller regions are "sectors" and the boundary runs just about right down the middle of the Federation, right by Earth to be exact. Are we to believe that there is no other starship in that entire half of the Federation?
Correction: Before ST:TNG, "quadrant" was a term used somewhat loosely. In the Wrath of Khan, quadrant does not refer to one quarter of the galaxy.
Look up the term "quadrant." In every single applicable variation it is some form of "one quarter of a circle."
According to memory alpha, the star trek wiki, a quadrant is a major region of space encompassing a portion of a galaxy. There are apparently major and minor quadrants. The major quadrants are the 4 quadrants dividing up the milky way. Minor quadrants of course encompass a smaller part of said major quadrants. How large is seemingly quite inconsistent though. I think it has been settled upon that a minor quadrant is a couple of sectors (4) large.
Sulu also mentions that Reliant (which is in visual range, approaching at half impulse power) is in the same quadrant, which going by the post-1987 definition would be like saying the car approaching down the street is on the same continent. It's pretty clear that when they mention a "quadrant" in this movie, they are not referring to a quarter of the entire galaxy.
6th Nov 2009
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: When Vader realizes that Luke has a twin sister, does he know that Leia is the sister or just that someone is Luke's sister? Or does he know when he/Anakin sees Luke and Leia during the Ewok celebration later?
Answer: Vader knows it is Leia when he first hears Luke's thoughts about his twin sibling.
I've always presumed so, but strictly speaking there's nothing evident in the scene that he specifically knows the identity of Luke's sister, all we know for certain is that he's discovered Luke has one.
26th May 2017
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: Is it true that in the original version of this that Yoda says the reason Obi-Wan didn't tell Luke the truth about Anakin turning to the dark side is because Yoda wouldn't let him?
Chosen answer: Technically no. While this was never in the original version, there is however a deleted scene where this happens.
There are script drafts where Yoda tells Luke not to judge Obi-Wan too harshly because it was his suggestion to keep Luke in the dark about his father. However, Obi-Wan himself still seems to own his decision, citing the same belief in the film that he was right "from a certain point of view."
7th Jun 2017
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: Did Han Solo know that Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader?
Chosen answer: No, he did not have any knowledge regarding that. Luke or Leia would have told him at some point after Vader's death, but that is not shown in the film.
Considering Leia's aghast reaction to Luke's explanation on Endor ("Your father!"), he hadn't mentioned it to her before, and I can't possibly believe he would tell anyone else before her. (On a side note, it amuses me to wonder just how long it took before Leia put two-and-two together about what this all means about HER father; the implications don't seem to have hit her before this scene is over).
19th May 2011
Scream 4 (2011)
Factual error: Spoiler: I saw this with two nurses who pointed this out, so I know this is correct. The final sequence takes place in a hospital room in ICU. Jill pulled out IVs and electrodes that were attached to her, then proceeded to Sydney's room. She pulled the call button, then tossed Sydney around the room. Glass shatters. She knocked Dewey out with a bedpan, fired a couple of shots from a gun, and yelled at Sydney, Gail, and the deputy. Sydney even fired the gun at one point. All of this goes on for quite some time, making a hell of a racket in ICU. The problem? The medical staff and security. Any nurse at the nurses' station would have been alerted automatically when Jill pulled the electrodes off herself, and also when the call button was pulled from the wall in Sydney's room. Within seconds there should have been someone come to the rooms to see why they were alerted, but the only time you see a nurse was when Jill hid just inside a door while making her way to Sydney's room. One walked past on her way somewhere as if nothing unusual was occurring. The subsequent fight occurs and you still don't see any hospital staff. So where were they?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The answer to "Where were they", is; "to the mandatory meeting for all non-emergency personnel in the basement conference room." No, I am not joking, it's a message that you can faintly hear in the background (and the subtitles make sure to include it) from the hospital IP speakers. It's ludicrous and I am not saying that it corrects the entry, especially since it does not cover the fact that there should be automatic alerts and some personnel is on duty at their stations as precisely described, but just saying that the script somehow wanted to set up / justify it.
I'm changing the type to "Factual Error" to cover this. It's not a plot hole, it's just a really, really, really, really, really, REALLY badly run hospital as far as security is concerned. And if the hospital seen in the following 'Scream (2022) ' is the same one, it's just further evidence that it's simply a really crummy hospital.
3rd Feb 2022
Scream (2022)
Corrected entry: It's said that Sidney appeared in every "Stab" movie except Stab 8 - but in Scream 4, Jenny says that Sid only appeared in the first three.
Correction: That isn't what Jenny says. Marnie says: "That has nothing to do with Woodsboro. I-I thought you said "Stab" was based on true stories." Jenny Randall: "The first three, The original trilogy is based off Sidney Prescott, but then she threatened to sue them if they used her stories. So they just started making stuff up. Stab 5 has time travel, which is by far the worst." She never said the movies didn't have Sidney in them after the first three, just they aren't based on true stories.
I don't think there is a leap in logic in the original post; she threatened to sue the production if they used her story, I can't see how they would avoid a lawsuit by exploiting her character further by putting her in more movies? If it's not a retcon, it's at best a rather problematic line.
Once a film has put a character name into existence and been released, the studio owns the copyright to that name. Sidney Prescott as a character could still be used in Stab films.
For that matter, you can always argue that a person does not own the story of her own life to begin with, that's not the point. The point is that since it was stated that they were afraid of the legal action Sidney Prescott threatened, and changed course to the saga for that reason, they would -not - put Sidney Prescott in other, even more outrageous and exploitative, material.
I'm not trying to be rude, but I can tell that you do not know anything at all about copyright law. The above user was correct. You don't know in what context Sidney was used in the following Stab films. The only thing we know about those later films is the very brief description of time travel in Stab 5, and the two fake outs from Stab 6&7.
No offense taken at all, it's true! I am no lawyer and I wasn't trying to get in the intricacies of copyright law and rights of publicity. I am just saying that the movie (previous movie, from 10 years before, in an obscure line of dialogue easily retconned or forgotten...) mentions that Sidney threatened them with a lawsuit, there's no reason why they'd stir her putting her even in cameos multiple times in their every third rate following schlocky flicks. It's simple as that. Would they win a lawsuit, on the grounds of what you (or the other poster) mentioned? Sure, but they never said she did sue them, the point was for the studio to avoid that sort of legal trouble entirely.
I think we're looking at the difference between a mistake and a criticism with this one. I agree that in Scream 4 the most reasonable interpretation is that Sidney successfully got (at the least) her name removed from Stab 4 onward (especially since without any further "true" events to draw from they would've had to start making things up anyhow). But the line can be taken other ways, and even if it's a stretch or goes against the spirit the line was written in, it's different from a mistake.
It still leaves a plot hole of why Sidney threatened to sue. If not for likeness / appearance, then for what?
1st Jun 2006
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Corrected entry: The character of C.W. Moss's father is referred to by name only once - just before the final ambush, when Bonnie recognizes him and says, "Isn't that Malcolm?". But in the credits his name is Ivan Moss.
Correction: She is asking if that is Malcolm, not stating that it is. The answer is no, it isn't Malcolm, but that is not a movie mistake.
This is an odd one. Going by the script the character's name was indeed Malcolm at least at that point, so either the credits got it wrong or they changed the name after filming but neglected to adjust the line. Even then I'd still be willing to let it slide, but considering how few people Bonnie and Clyde know due to their lifestyle there really isn't anyone else "Malcolm" could be referring to.
4th Jan 2020
Die Hard (1988)
Stupidity: Hans keeps a major part of his plan secret from his own team: that the electromagnetic lock will be disabled if the FBI shuts down power to the building. The mercenaries hired as muscle don't need to know the minutiae of the plan, but it seems ludicrous that Theo wasn't told. Theo states on more than one occasion that he can't proceed past a certain point and that he hopes Hans has a plan for the final lock. Evidently, Hans was keeping this information secret simply to amuse himself, which makes little sense considering how much planning went into the heist.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Or because he simply doesn't trust anyone with that kind of knowledge. He neither trusts them or cares about them, it's all him.
So he trusts that Theo would be on board with all the murder and mayhem, open all the other locks, be in a tactical lookout position when the police try to breach, and drive the getaway vehicle. But he doesn't trust Theo enough to tell him the last lock will open when the power goes out?
It's not about trust; Hans needs Theo to do what he is there for and that is all you mention up to the final lock. He has a plan for the final lock and so there's no need to discuss it with the team, since it won't be any of them responsible.
The more people that know the plan the more chances of someone talking. Especially when they are hired mercenaries.
Theo was already on board with taking hostages and committing murder. Him knowing that the power needed to be shut off to open the last lock doesn't appear to be particularly important information you would need to keep from someone to keep them from talking.
If he's the only one that knows the final step to get the money, then at least up until that moment he is absolutely indispensable to the plan and ensures no-one would double-cross him. In any case I'm not sure being more cautious than necessary really qualifies as "stupidity."
7th Nov 2002
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Corrected entry: When the Enterprise first encounters the Reliant, we see several screen shots of the Reliant on the Enterprise viewscreen, and several shots of the Enterprise on Reliant's viewscreen. The puzzling thing is, if you watch very closely to the shots of the Enterprise on the Reliant's viewscreen, you will notice that the stars are actually moving BACKWARD, as if the Reliant were in a slow reverse. Obviously this is an editing blooper since Khan just ordered that the ship slow to one half impulse power, which still moves the ship forward.
Correction: Trek canon has shown the viewscreens are not the same as windows, and that the screens can show us views from vantage points where no camera exists. These vantage points also do not need to be stationary. As such, the views of Enterprise on Reliant's screen are taking Enterprise's speed into account, and the 'vantage point' is backing up to keep her 'in the shot' while Reliant is still moving forward.
This would work except the stars continue moving when the film cuts to exterior shots where the Enterprise and Reliant are both in view, even when they are nearly parallel with each other.
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 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.
16th Dec 2004
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: Right after curfew is in effect, when Tatum and Sydney are sitting on Sydney's front porch, you see the killer in the bushes in the background. The very next scene is of the video store where both killers, Stu and Billy, are speaking to Randy. The next scene that follows directly is Sydney and Tatum in the grocery store where you see the killer's reflection on the cooler glass. How can the killer(s) be in more than one place if this is all going on at the same time?
Correction: We see two students at the school dressed up as the killer. It is plausible that other students do it too and follow Sidney around as a joke.
One thing is prancing around at school screaming in the corridors in an obvious joke (that got both students suspended, by the way), another thing entirely is stalking someone to their home or in the streets with the police looking out for the suspect. Both scenes don't make sense other than to give cheap scares and throw red herrings.
These moments come off silly (the one in the supermarket especially), but it's no mistake. These costumed figures being imposters wanting to harass Sidney for kicks is really the only plausible explanation, and the jaded cynicism and callousness of 90s youth culture is a major recurring theme of the film, so it fits.
I agree that it's the only explanation you have to give to make sense of it, but in this movie and in the next movies in the saga, when they wanna show imposters, they show prancing idiots who do want to harass and be goofs (such as the guy in the hallway in this movie). Sidney never notices those people who do absolutely nothing to be noticed, so they are there to harass the audience, not her.
8th Jun 2005
Scream (1996)
Deliberate mistake: When Sidney is typing the message to the police, you can see that there are red lights flashing, which must mean the police are there, 5 seconds after she types. Obviously deliberately done for the humor. (00:29:30 - 00:30:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Contrary to what the entry says, I don't see police lights flashing as she types, nor when she talks to Billy. I do agree that still it's barely a minute before the police arrive in full force on the scene and it's pretty ridiculous (although I am not sure it's deliberate humour).
There's a time skip between Sidney encountering Dewey at the front door and Billy being arrested. It's plausible Tatum had sent Dewey to check on Sidney knowing she was going to be late, and so he arrived before the rest of the authorities. Billy did not chase after Sidney and likely reacted calmly to Dewey to look as innocent as he could, he wouldn't necessarily have been arrested right away.
5th Sep 2021
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Corrected entry: Nothing in space could communicate with whales in the ocean without radios. It wouldn't matter if it was generating the loudest sound in the universe, or had the most sensitive mike and most powerful amplifier - sound can't travel through a vacuum. The probe couldn't "hear" the whales, and the whales couldn't hear the probe.
Correction: This assumes that the probe, which does not appear to be a 'mechanical' device, uses a communications technology that we are familiar with, and there's no reason to assume that it does. It's a fictional, alien probe, which is likely using a fictional, alien technology to communicate with the whales.
You're describing fantasy fiction and not science fiction. The whales are not equipped with alien technology to send and receive, so it doesn't matter what technology the probe contains The movie makes a point of "playing" the sounds of whales and the sounds of the probe. Sounds, by definition, are vibrations of a medium - there is no medium here to carry the vibrations, and even if there were, they would have to be so powerful as to cause worldwide, catastrophic shock waves in order to reach.
Star Trek does often dabble in fantasy under the guise of "too advanced for our puny minds." The probe's signal is not itself a sound but some kind of energy (or something) that can inexplicably drain power from starships, cause giant hurricanes, and produce a sound when it hits a medium. The probe presumably has sensors that can detect the effects of a whale call and extrapolate/ "hear" it much the way the Enterprise bridge screen can "see" across vast distances using sensor data.
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.
Answer: Did you watch the remake or the 1981 original? In that version, these mean kids terrorise a girl and cause her to fall out of a third-story window and die. They take a vow of secrecy and leave, then the shadow of a person appears before the dead girl. At the prom, a mysterious stalker taunts and kills the group of kids, one by one. The police, at first, believe a local child molester did it but died in a car crash. They reopen the case and arrive at the prom to see it was the younger brother of the murdered girl who discovered her body and sought revenge.
I watched the 1981 original, but as my question says, I had not seen it in a while. So, is Randy saying that the police should be investigating people who are directly connected to Sidney and her mother (Mr. Prescott, Billy, Sidney's friends)? Just as the killer in "Prom Night" was directly connected to a murder victim?
Sort of. Randy's mostly saying that the cops are wasting their time trying to track down the whereabouts of a missing suspect and that the killer is more likely to be hiding in plain sight among the victims' inner social circle.
TonyPH