LorgSkyegon

Question: On IMDB, the bio for actor Sean Kanan who played Mike Barnes, stated that he almost died during filming of this movie. However the trivia section states nothing about it. Does anybody out there know what happened that caused him to almost die?

SAZOO1975

Chosen answer: Kanan performed his own stunts, and during one of these he was injured with an internal bleeding, which was not discovered until later. When he took aspirin for the pain, combined with his injuries he went into hypovolemic shock and had to be rushed to the hospital.

Twotall

It was the scene where Mr. Miyagi threw him through the doors of the new Cobra Kai dojo. They did a large number of takes, and it tore his abdominal wall.

LorgSkyegon

The Platonic Permutation - S9-E9

Continuity mistake: In episode 16 of season 1, Penny is talking about making a cake for Leonard's birthday and states she knows his birthday because she was checking a horoscope for him. But in this episode she does not know when his birthday is, which leads to Leonard revealing he was secretly reading Penny's diary. (00:40:00)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: It's certainly possible to forget something you knew eight years ago.

LorgSkyegon

This is perhaps true for two people who rarely have contact, but I would list this as a character mistake. Penny and Leonard are in a serious relationship and are married at this point.

Bishop73

This is also a couple who BOTH forgot it was their anniversary.

LorgSkyegon

I forgot my wife's birthday on a number of occasions. It's one of the reasons she is now my ex-wife.

There's a difference between forgetting and not knowing.

Bishop73

I've been married for seven years and my husband still doesn't know my birthday. It's the 24th but sometimes he thinks it's the 24th or the 4th or the 20th etc. And especially since Leonard doesn't celebrate his birthday, it's not something that's going to remain in the forefront of Penny's mind.

immortal eskimo

20th Nov 2019

Twilight (2008)

Question: How come the vampires don't die during the day and are awake? How can the werewolves transform at will instead of by a full moon?

Rob245

Answer: Because they are fictional characters, and Stephanie Meyer made up new rules for them to suit her narrative.

She should've still respected the lore as most do. This series is her as Bella and the two guys are based on guys she lusted for in high school who ignored her. Read between the lines people.

Rob245

Traditional folklore about vampires does not mention sunlight being harmful to vampires. This is a more modern characteristic.

raywest

Answer: The moon has no effect on the Quileutes because they are not werewolves. In the books, they are shape-shifters that can change at will. Rather than being created by a werewolf's bite, some Quileutes are born with a gene that becomes active and transforms them into wolves when vampires are near. They cannot turn other people into wolves. The movie series glossed over this fact, apparently to avoid confusion about the differences. Even though they are called "werewolves" in the movies, that is not what they are.

raywest

In addition, actual werewolves do exist in the Twilight universe. They are called "Children of the Moon." They follow most of the standard werewolf myths: changing only during the night of a full moon, feral behavior, infecting others by biting them, etc... They are also immune to vampire venom. The Volturi hunted them nearly to extinction after one nearly killed Caius.

LorgSkyegon

Answer: It seems like you already decided your own answer, but like a lot of mythology and lore, hundreds of variations occur. Most often werewolves can change at will once they've gone through their first transformation. In a lot of lore, the full moon only forces them to change, even if it's against their will. It does not mean it's the only way to change. Meyer did add a twist to vampires in the sun, but in many stories, sunlight is not fatal, they can be safe in the shadows, or the sunlight only weakens, not kills, them, and/or they are strengthened by the moonlight (which is why they came out at night).

Bishop73

Didn't decide, only observed what I'd seen with the like of Chaney's Wolfman and Lugosi's Dracula, that's all.

Rob245

The horror movies of that era, like Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolfman, etc. freely adapted their own interpretation of traditional folklore.

raywest

21st Nov 2019

Pokemon (1998)

Answer: I don't think so. Pikachu needs a thunderstone to evolve and I think in that episode Pikachu said it was happy the way it was.

Answer: He refused to! He is also not the only Pokemon in the series to have done that, the first time in episode 14 fighting a Raichu, and then other times in the series (episode 540 comes to mind). Pokemon have their own free will (for being a bunch of critters locked in tiny balls...) and some are so happy with themselves that they prefer not to turn into their evolved version. Which usually is way less cute, incidentally.

Sammo

Isn't there an episode where Pikachu is actively trying not to evolve?

Ssiscool

Unlike most Pokemon which evolve as they gain levels, Pikachu can't evolve into Raichu unless it uses a Thunder Stone. In Indigo League episode "Electric Shock Showdown", Pikachu explicitly refuses to evolve, wanting to win its rematch with Lt. Surge's Raichu itself. Pikachu again refused to evolve in the Diamond and Pearl episode "Pika and Goliath!", simply resolving to train harder.

LorgSkyegon

What I heard is that pikachu is the mascot of the franchise, and evolving it into raichu the anime would enrage a lot of pokemon fans.

Even if Pikachu had evolved into raichu, wouldn't there be a risk that it would decrease the number of the show's viewers?

10th Aug 2016

Star Wars (1977)

Stupidity: The Death Star comes equipped with a powerful tractor beam capable of capturing a ship the size and agility of the Millennium Falcon. Why don't they use it against the rebel fighters attacking them at the end of the film? Okay, Obi-Wan Kenobi turned it off earlier but I find it hard to believe that someone who has never before visited the largest, most complex space station in the Universe and who was previously unaware of its very existence can disable a fundamental security system but the people who designed, built and run the whole thing can't work out how to switch it back on. They should have no problems with this, considering the fact that Obi-Wan didn't damage it.

PEDAUNT

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Obi Wan disrupted the battle at a critical time causing much confusion. We could chalk this oversight up to "Fog of War" - that in the heat of battle it's normal for commanders to overlook obvious things and seem to act stupidly. It would also be reasonable to assume that the fighters were too close for the tractor beam emitter to target them.

This scenario would require every single person on the Death Star who was involved in the maintenance of vital defence systems not noticing that one of them had been switched off! Not ONE person noticed? Obi Wan did not disable the tractor beam during "the heat of battle." There was a considerable time lapse between his switching off the tractor beam and the climactic final battle, during which time it would have been switched back on. When the Millenium Falcon leavs the Death Star Han Solo remarks that he hopes that "old man" succeeded in disabling the tractor beam, implying that those on the Death Star would be trying to use it. Even then, they didn't notice it had been switched off? Not sabotaged, not disabled, switched off.

Good point. This was definitely stupidity on the part of the Death Star crew, but not stupid as a plot point. It does happen in combat regularly. In 1987 the USS Stark was hit by 2 Iraqi Exocet missiles after challenging a single fighter. The ships' Close-in Weapons System should have easily shot the missiles down, but the investigation showed that no-one had noticed that the system had not been turned on.

They didn't use the tractor beam when the gang was escaping in the Falcon because they WANTED them to get away. The Empire placed a tracking beacon onboard so as to be able to find the hidden Rebel Base. As to how the Falcon was snagged originally: yes, they had just exited hyperspace, but they were not relatively fast; they were preoccupied with the TIE fighter (incapable of light speed) and the small moon right up to the point they were trapped in the tractor beam (and realizing "that's no moon!"

kayelbe

Suggested correction: The Falcon was travelling towards the Death Star when it was caught in the tractor beam. The tractor beam was properly turned back on by the time it travelled to Yavin. The rebel fighters are too small and quick to be held in a tractor beam and there are so many of them so it would be near impossible to trap enough to make a difference.

As I have already pointed out, assigning technical limitations to a wholly fictional piece of technology is absurd. As to "flying towards the Death Star" - the X and Y wing fighters are shown doing just that. As for being too quick, the Millenium Falcon is decelerating from superluminal speeds when it is captured in the tractor beam. That's pretty bloody fast in anyone's books.

The key phrase here is "fictional piece of technology", there is no way to understand how it works. Any explanations is pure conjecture.

ctown28

It's flat out stated by General Dodonna in the battle briefing that the Death Star's defenses are based around repelling attacks by capital ships, not fighters. The targeting may not be exact enough.

LorgSkyegon

Actually, claiming a fictional piece of equipment can't behave the way you think it should is somewhat silly. The previous explanation that the tractor beam's limitations were the reason for not using it during the battle makes perfect sense.

Corrected entry: When Indiana Jones is told about the tablet discovery by Donovan, Indiana says the three knights who find the grail during the first Crusade are French. When Indiana meets the last knight at the end of the movie, he speaks perfect English, and with an English accent.

Mike Lynch

Correction: He's also almost 900 years old and imbued with power by God Himself. I think a simple language would be no big deal at all.

LorgSkyegon

How is he imbued by power from God?

lionhead

How else do you explain him being almost a thousand years old?

LorgSkyegon

Drinking from the cup. How does that make him speak English?

lionhead

The Grail is imbued with the power of God because it held the blood of Christ. One would think that since he is essentially the God-appointed guardian of the Grail, he would have any knowledge needed to guard it.

LorgSkyegon

Thats a lot of assumptions. The cup grants immortality, that's it. It doesn't make you a polyglot.

lionhead

He's the appointed guardian of the Holy Grail, an artifact that grants eternal life and is protected by miraculous and physically impossible traps. The guardian is given whatever power needed to keep the Grail in the chamber.

LorgSkyegon

He doesn't have to do anything to keep the cup in the chamber. The seal does that.

lionhead

I suppose you can make the case about God giving the knight the ability to speak English, but why in an English accent? I would think he'd speak in a French or American accent.

Mike Lynch

Why? An American dialect is no more neutral than an English one. People who speak with a French accent do so because they are still using rules and habits learned speaking French when trying to speak another language.

Because languages and the people who speak them change over time, especially that long of a period, by the immigration and emigration of people, influence of other languages, etc... What he would have spoken then would have been Old French, not modern French. While they do share a modicum of similarity, they are not mutually intelligible due to changes in grammar, syntax, and word use. Old French, for instance, contains far more influence from the Germanic Frankish language and Celtic Gaulish than modern French.

LorgSkyegon

A French accent from 900 years ago would sound nothing like a modern French accent. In the same way, what we consider to be a modern proper English accent is actually a fairly modern phenomenon designed to distinguish upper from lower class people.

LorgSkyegon

6th Jun 2019

Miracle (2004)

Question: Did the scene where Herb Brooks has his players do sprints after a 3-3 tie against Norway really happen?

Answer: Yes it did. They did the "Herbies" for over an hour according to player Ken Morrow. The lights being shut off was also true.

LorgSkyegon

Why did Herb have his players do the sprints?

Because they were paying attention to the pretty girls in the stands and not to the game and their opponents.

LorgSkyegon

Because all of the team was not focused on the game they were focused on the girls in the stands.

Because they didn't do a good game, the were all out of their heads.

He was trying to bring them together. He felt he still had 26 individuals, rather than one team. By making them suffer together, he gave them a common purpose - hating him.

Something tells me that wasn't the only time a hockey coach had his players stay after a game to do sprints.

27th Feb 2017

The Last Samurai (2003)

Factual error: In the scene before the Americans are to be introduced to the emperor, they are told that the "Meiji" emperor is reform minded. However, Meiji is a posthumous era name, in other words, given after the emperor's death, which occurred many years later, whereas he is still very young in the period depicted.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: They are using modern terms and words so that the film and characters are easier to understand.

Greg Dwyer

It doesn't change the fact that this is a factual error, no matter the reason behind it.

Epigenis

Yes it does. Almost nobody outside Japan would have known the name "Mutsuhito." Films often use modern terminology to make things easier for audiences to understand. Like saying "vegetarian" instead of the older term "Pythagorean."

LorgSkyegon

12th Sep 2019

The Faculty (1998)

Question: Why are the aliens in that town? If they come from a oceanic planet then why not go directly into one of our five or so oceans?

Rob245

Answer: The aliens needed fresh water. All the infected were drinking bottled water. When the gang were examining the slug in the garage, it dried up and died from salt, like a snail.

Answer: Whales and dolphins also lack manipulating appendages and the ability to survive on land.

LorgSkyegon

Answer: The aliens need to infect intelligent life to thrive. There is no intelligent life in our oceans.

BaconIsMyBFF

That is not exactly true. Whales and dolphins are considerably intelligent, arguably near human-level, and live in complex social groups.

raywest

Answer: Well if they need to stay hydrated whales and dolphins make more sense than inhabiting people.

Rob245

Dolphins and whales are also far less numerous. With populations numbering fewer than 10 million total across all species versus nearly 6 billion at the time for humanity.

LorgSkyegon

Answer: It could be the salt or pollution. The aliens were drinking nothing but pure bottled water.

Good answer. Dang all you guys on this site are pretty good at this. I enjoy these answers you give since hardly anybody ever listens to me.

Rob245

18th Jun 2018

The Karate Kid (1984)

Corrected entry: When Daniel enters Mr. Miyagi's house for the first time, the door knocks into wind chimes hanging from the ceiling. When Daniel's mother finds Daniel at Mr. Miyagi's house and enters, the chimes are gone.

Correction: Given the time that passes, he easily could have taken them down.

Greg Dwyer

Nothing confirms that he was removing them.

Nothing confirms that they ate every day during the film's time frame either. Does that mean they didn't eat other than what we saw?

dewinela

Nothing confirms he didn't remove them either.

Nothing confirms he wasn't either.

LorgSkyegon

There are at least 3 scenes where the chimes are present. 1. When Daniel first goes to Myagi's room-he opens the door and hits the chimes. 2. When he goes to Myagi's room to say thank you for fixing his bike-the chimes seem a little further away from the door and he seems to have to exaggerate the door opening to actually hit them. 3. When Daniels mother enters Myagi's room the chimes are there (possibly slightly repositioned) but she doesn't open the door wide enough to make contact with them.

Correction: No they aren't. She just opens the door enough to not bump it.

Stupidity: This film reveals that the theme park was built upon a dormant volcano. This means that John Hammond either neglected to do a geological survey when picking a location for his park, or simply ignored it and foolishly gambled that the volcano would never erupt.

Phaneron

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Lots of people live right next to dormant volcanos. It can be thousands of years before a dormant volcano erupts. Might be a risk, but not as much as lets say living on a tectonic boundary or in tornado alley.

lionhead

There's a difference between assuming the risk of living in an area prone to a natural disaster versus building a theme park that's completely reliant on tourism revenue in an area prone to a natural disaster. If a person's home is destroyed by a volcano, they can eventually get a new home, even if it takes a year or two. If a multi-billion dollar theme park is destroyed by a volcano, it's not something that can be replaced so easily, especially since no insurance company in their right mind would cover any of it. Additionally, the island in this film is fictional, which means the writers deliberately chose for a volcanic eruption to be the reason for the evacuation, when they could have just as easily made it so that the military decides to carpet-bomb the island or send in ground troops to gun down all the dinosaurs.

Phaneron

A dormant volcano is a dormant volcano, no reason to think it will erupt only years after you build a theme park on it. The area is not "prone" to a natural disaster. The eruption is a total surprise. Vesuvius erupts once every 2 decades or something and a lot more than a simple theme park is inside its destruction zone (red zone), including 800,000 people. And that is an active volcano. Take a look at Carney Park, a military recreational facility on top of a dormant volcano. Stupid?

lionhead

Yes, it is stupid. If you put a multi-billion dollar investment into an area where it could be destroyed by a volcanic eruption, it is a stupid decision, regardless of whether it's real life or fiction.

Phaneron

Also, the examples you gave are areas with civilian populations that rely on those types of attractions to help stimulate the local economy. Isla Nublar is a privately owned island with no civilian population to speak of, other than park employees, meaning it is 100% reliant on tourism for its revenue.

Phaneron

How many theme parks are built in California, which is severely prone to earthquakes?

LorgSkyegon

That's not an apples to apples comparison. California has a heavy civilian population and theme parks help contribute to their economy. Jurassic World is located on an isolated island with no civilian population and has to rely completely on tourism to stay in business.

Phaneron

Corrected entry: In the computer room, when the operator enters the room we see an overhead shot and the room has a highly polished floor. We see the reflections of everything, but the operator doesn't notice the reflection Hunt would have made by hanging from the ceiling. It would be very noticeable on the floor even if he wasn't looking straight down - the reflection would be well within his field of view.

Correction: What a load of old dingo's kidneys. Normal human eyesight takes in much, much more that a few degrees straight ahead! Can you see the floor or ceiling when you are standing upright? Of course you can - it's called peripheral vision. Hunt would stand out like a dog's. Well, he'd be visible, put it that way.

Where you are focused on something, your peripheral vision severely reduces. Donlow was so focused on (and confused by) the knife stuck in the desk that he simply didn't take notice of any reflection.

LorgSkyegon

We also have to remember that he's been puking his guts out. That right there can take every ounce of focus to get through your day. Plus as mentioned, the knife. He's wondering how a knife got into a secure vault. It doesn't take him long to figure out someone made a download, so he reports the breach.

Correction: You're assuming the operator would look at the floor. He simply didn't look down.

Question: During one scene in 1955, Marty mentions John F. Kennedy, and nobody has any idea who he's talking about. Would Kennedy really have been a totally unfamiliar name to most Americans in 1955? True, he wasn't President yet, but he was a popular Democratic senator from a prominent family.

Answer: He was both a war hero and a senator, but unless Lorraine's father followed politics closely he might not have recognized the name, especially since Kennedy wasn't a senator for their state.

Plus it would be unheard of to name a street after a living politician from across the country.

LorgSkyegon

Answer: Keep in mind, there was no TV news in that house (they just got a TV). And I don't see the dad being one to read any further than the sports page, or listen to anything but comedy on the radio.

They didn't just get a TV, he just made it possible to watch it whilst eating.

lionhead

If I remember correctly, Mrs. Baines said that they just got the TV.

That is their first TV. Lorraine says to Marty, "It's our first television set. Dad just bought it today."

5th Jan 2019

12 Angry Men (1957)

Question: Did they ever look at the hole in his pocket that the knife supposedly slipped out of?

Answer: If you're referring to the jurors, no. We see the entirety of their deliberations. If you're referring to the prosecution or defense, that is unknown. Given, however, that none of the jurors brought up the question, it's likely there was at least a check of his clothes to verify he had a hole in his pocket.

Given how easy it would be to simply tear a hole as an excuse, even if it was there, it wouldn't be much in the way of corroboration.

LorgSkyegon

25th Aug 2008

Jurassic Park III (2001)

Corrected entry: At the beginning of the film, when the boat crew is killed, why isn't the boat itself destroyed? Yes, the top is a bit damaged but the main body of the boat is fine. A creature that could kill the whole crew in that short space of time would surely damage the rest of the boat as well. Even a modern day crocodile can easily smash a hole in the side of a small boat just using its tail.

Correction: The Pterosaurs only attack the humans for invading their territory (and in the process, they damage the flimsy roof of the boat that was sheltering a human). They were not out to destroy a boat.

SoylentPurple

Is it ever explicitly stated anywhere what dinosaur attacks the boat?

In the original script it said that there were to also be scenes where Grant sees foot prints and other evidence. The opening shot was done before the final script was done. They used that scene for the opening and did not re-shoot it.

Not to mention that a crocodile is extremely strong and tough, while any flying animal would be considerably less so.

LorgSkyegon

Correction: It was said that they wanted to have it be the pterosaurs who attacked the boat but cut the scene as it conflicted with the script since they were still locked in the cage at the time.

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.