Plot hole: By having Admiral Holdo perform her infamous hyperspace ramming stunt, Rian Johnson created a continuity problem with the rest of the Star Wars universe. Since this maneuver was successful, every space battle before and since should only include a droid piloting spacecraft ramming enemy bases through hyperspace. This tactic would have been more cost effective and less risky than full on space battles seen in previous films. This tactic would no doubt have been tried in a universe filled with space battles often with disposable troops on both sides, such as in the Clone Wars. The Death Star did not need a successful trench run to be destroyed, just an X-wing with a droid ramming it at hyperspeed.
lionhead
9th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think it's a one in a million shot. The damaged caused crippled the large ship but didn't fully destroy it and the other ships destroyed were caused by the debris from the bigger ship and ramming ship. That's just bad tactics. But in the case of for example the death star I doubt highly that ramming it with hyperspace jumps will cause significant damage. It's not like you are firing an armor piercing round and I'm pretty sure ships are equipped with all sorts of anti-debris protection. Plus I think it's bloody difficult even at that range to aim correctly at an enemy ship with a hyperjump.
NASA engineers have to be aware of space debris orbiting the Earth that is the size of small particles because when they are orbiting at 18,000 mph around the Earth, they can cause significant damage to spacecraft. Turn that speed up to near or past the speed of light as in hyperspace and an X-wing should be enough to significantly cripple a Death Star sized object, if not completely destroy it. Yes, ships have shields, but these are ray shields meant for cannon fire. Both RotJ and TFA show that a ship can penetrate these shields (TFA displayed it at hyperspace speeds no less). Aiming should be as easy as punching the location into a navicomputer as done for traveling. It is also easier to hit and less difficult to aim at large or close objects, like Star Destroyers, Death Stars, or planets and moons.
"The damage caused crippled the large ship but didn't fully destroy it" This is what was introduced to the fiction by the director. You can dislike that if you'd like but it is not a "mistake."
This was the outcome. Hyperspace ramming was what was introduced. The outcome was also grander than simply crippling a ship. It split the ship in two and the entire fleet or a large portion of it ended up being destroyed. Without a worthwhile explanation as to how this is possible now but not previously, it also introduces plot wholes in the previous movies.
You are talking about a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. You simply don't know. Hypespace is not as simple as going faster than the speed of light. They hardly have shields, I'm talking about armor protection, bulkheads, bulges, space armor, netting. Whatever.
Hyperspace as defined by Wookiepedia is an alternate dimension that could only be reached by traveling at or faster than the speed of light. So at this stage in the ramming stunt, it is as simple as traveling at or past light speeds as the ship has not yet entered the hyperspace lanes in the parallel dimension. So now the force the FO ship faces is the mass times acceleration and since it is traveling past lightspeed, the force would be extraordinary regardless of the mass. It would be even harder to believe an armor or anything else that could withstand that force, even on a Death Star sized space station.
To clarify, this is the hyperspace that Rian Johnson created. Before it was less clear, but the standard that has been followed since the beginning was one could not ram opposing ships with it while entering hyperspace lanes. Han Solo talks about this in A New Hope. Rogue One even has ships just entering hyperspace killing themselves on incoming Star Destroyers. This is the more faithful representation of what hyperspace travel was. Rian Johnson has completely rewritten what occurs in hyperspace which breaks Star Wars canon.
The official explanation is that the Raddus had special experimental deflector shields and that is why it worked. With normal shields it would not have worked.
Source? Is it said in the movie somewhere? So one should expect the Resistance to use these "special experimental deflector shields" and hyperspace ramming to combat the hundreds of Star Destroyers in The Rise of Skywalker, correct? Should be pretty effective. Weird that all the promos have the Resistance fighting them the old-fashioned way.
It is in the novelization of the movie.
Using a novel to correct a mistake a movie makes still makes it a movie mistake. Movies should not need books, comics, or videos games to explain their obvious flaws.
All I was saying is that it was a one in a million shot and that doing it requires a lot more than simply pointing towards the enemy and activating hyperjump. If anyone can do it and it can destroy entire fleets, then everybody would do it. But they don't, so it's not that simple. Since that is a fact, it's not a plot hole.
That is why it creates a plot hole because the movie never presents it in a way that only this ship at this time in this way can do it. It comes across as anyone can do it so why didn't anyone else do it in the thousands of years that this universe has existed through the countless wars that have taken place? Saying it is not that simple is not a fact, its an opinion. I watched it and it looked pretty simple. It comes across as anyone can do it, so everyone should have been doing it, thus the plot hole.
This scene doesn't create a plot hole since, in the film, nothing was established to show this wouldn't work. Nor would it create a plot hole unless it was previously shown that unmanned ships were used as a regular tactic to destroy bigger ships. Plot holes are when something occurs that contradicts what the story itself (usually as a plot device to further the plot along or conclude the plot).
It coming across as simple doesn't make it simple. The simple fact of the matter is that this fictional universe works that way, in the other movies it hasn't happened so it's not simple. It's as simple as that. In any case it would be a plot hole in those movies, not this one. Look, if you want everything to be logical then these movies will be nothing but automated ships ramming into each other left and right and you still want the story to be told? I don't think so. So, you want to explain why they don't ram everything and you got it. Deal with it. Otherwise the fact they use hyperdrives is a plothole then as well.
In this fictional universe, hyperspace did not work as weapons until Rian Johnson changed hyperspace for this movie's plot convenience. In doing so, Rian broke the standard canon that each previous movie followed. This is why its a plot hole in this movie and creates a discontinuity for the entire saga. Everything does not have to be understood or compared to our real world, but each fictional universe has its own set of physical laws and rules that each form of media in that universe needs to follow. Hyperdrives are not plot holes because they existed since the beginning of Star Wars and have a certain set of standards they follow that are understood. Changing these laws without a logical or worthwhile explanation in the film is ultimately disrespectful to the source material. The very idea that you brought up in that this creates plot holes in all the previous films proves that this scene is a terrible addition to the saga.
Seems to me like you just dislike the scene. Thats fine and I can understand you feel its a continuity. But it is not a plot hole for the movie.
It is more of a continuity error that creates plot holes in the previous movies, so it could be labeled better. However, if we view Star Wars as one story like George Lucas did, then it would be a plot hole for Star Wars as a whole. If it was successful in explaining how they could do it now, but not a few years ago, then it would have been fine, more or less. It failed to do so making it a mistake, no matter how visually pleasing it was.
Hyperspace always worked as a weapon. Han explained years ago that is why they had to plot a course through hyperspace. So they would not hit anything. She meant to use it as a weapon, and succeeded. This is nothing new.
If it were a one in a million shot, then Hux would not have panicked and ordered the cruiser shot down immediately. Furthermore, the Resistance could have used their two escort ships, which were going to run out of fuel and be destroyed anyway, to try the same thing.
Doesn't the one in a million argument make Holdo a traitor that attempted to flee at the rebellion's darkest hour then? Your argument is nonsense.
It was a suicide run. It was a one in a million shot to take out the main vessel, but whatever she was going to do, she was going to die.
Suggested correction: Just because it worked on this occasion, doesn't mean it would always work. It also hadn't been attempted before. It's not a plot hole that they didn't destroy the Death Star like this, since nobody in the rebellion considered it.
But why did no-one in the Rebellion consider it? It was their most desperate hour. They were in similar desperation as the Resistance in The Last Jedi, if not more so. Their were similar desperate times in the Clone Wars when both sides had troops of disposable clones and droids. They did not consider trying it then? They were wars occurring before that and no-one thought about using hyperspace as a weapon? It is illogical to think that there was no-one in the history of that universe that would never even consider using hyperspace as a weapon. The reason it was not considered was before Rian Johnson rewrote it, hyperspace did not operate like that. Plain and simple. Rian Johnson rewrote how hyperspace works, creating a plot holes and discontinuities for the entire saga.
No one rewrote Hyperspace. It has always been like that.
9th Dec 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: A human being cannot survive inside a closed refrigerator for even one hour, let alone overnight. They would suffer from a lack of oxygen and die. "Refrigerator death" is a rare occurrence but has happened on several occasions when children accidentally lock themselves in a fridge or if someone purposefully traps an individual in one.
Correction: Clearly it didn't work for him as he tried to commit suicide but was alive the next day. Maybe he got cold feet and exited quite quickly. Since the scene cuts after he closes the door you can't know what happened.
Incorrect. We see the refrigerator fully closing. When he closes it, it's night and when it cuts to the next scene it's morning, therefore he was in overnight.
Sure it closed, but you can't see he was in it all night. You can force yourself out of such types of fridge, if you have to.
So long as there is no scene specifically showing him crawl out of said refrigerator at dawn, there is no proof - implied or otherwise - he was in there overnight. As the previous entry corrected earlier, there is no way of knowing exactly how long he was inside for, and he obviously survived up until the end credits so the entire point or duration is moot.
Correction: It is possible the fridge just simply didn't seal fully. They are a poor family and likely have broken down old appliances. The airtight seals around the door could have been damaged thus letting air get inside, albeit even if just a little.
The fridge did close. Watch the scene, we here and see the fridge closing fully, it was night when he entered and the scene cuts to morning of the next day where it's daytime, so he was in the fridge overnight.
A refrigerator that is on, like the Joker's, has a fan that circulates cold air. The air comes from somewhere. A running refrigerator is not a vacuum.
There is so much wrong with this statement. First, that's not how refrigerators work. Second, asphyxiation doesn't occur in a vacuum. The mistake isn't claiming the Joker was in a vacuum.
2nd Feb 2017
Alien Resurrection (1997)
Corrected entry: When climbing above the nesting grounds, one of the guys gets a dead, very heavy alien on his shoe. To save the crippled guys life and keep him climbing, he unhooks from the crippled guy and falls to his death. He didn't have to die, though. He could have just pushed it off with his other foot.
Correction: Christie was very badly injured from the acid that hit him. He was barely conscious and simply couldn't move his foot to get rid of the alien. It wasn't a certainty it would work either, Christie simply thought of the fastest and surest way for Vriess to be saved.
I always got the impression Christie was paralyzed from the waist down after he gets hit with the acid. It's a fitting way for him to die, because he saves Vriess who is also paralyzed in the same way.
How would he get paralyzed from the acid? It hit his face.
Went into his brain. I can't see him being too tired to move his leg but not too tired to un-snap his harness. Either way, it's a very poorly explained scene. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong, it's just the way I always read the scene when I watched the movie.
Right, right. I get where you are coming from. But let's be realistic, if the acid had gone in his brain he'd be dead. He just didn't have the strength left, not tired, just in and out of conscious. And again, it would have taken too long to try and get the alien off.
Plot hole: In the shot where two of the pirates find Jack Sparrow in the prison, you see the moon shine out over Port Royal and the pirate's hand around Jack's neck is skeletal. While this is happening we know that Elizabeth is being led onto the Black Pearl by two pirates. If the pirate in the prison turns skeletal, why don't the pirates with Elizabeth turn skeletal? It's clear that they don't as Elizabeth only discovers the curse later on aboard the Black Pearl.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This can be explained that on the route from Elizabeth's house to the ship there is a lot of fog, smoke from fires and gunpowder explosions, so the moon doesn't get through. The moon only get through once they are underway again and the fog is cleared. The prison is much further and higher than the town and so the moon does get through (only sometimes) there.
You're very much mistaken. In later scene pirates turn skeletal when marching underwater, at the bottom of the ocean. Moon is easily able to get through water and this smoke isn't thick enough to block the moon.
How does water compare to fog? Of course the moonlight comes through the water, its transparent. Fog isn't transparent. You can go technical and question how much the moonlight is reflected away before the effect wears off, but obviously the effect wears off when there is no direct moonlight hitting them, as is the case with fog and smoke.
5th Jul 2005
Toy Story (1995)
Trivia: The carpet design used in Sid's house is the same design used in the hotel featured in The Shining (1980). (00:48:55 - 00:50:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
The design is spot on. The color is just different.
So it is identical, except for how it is different?
No one said it was identical. The trivia is the pattern is the same. Color has no bearing on the trivial fact. The fact that they animated the carpet means the design was intentional. Although, it's possible they copied the design from a 70's carpet pattern that "The Shining" also used, rather than copy the design in "The Shining."
11th Oct 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: Joker's left eye make up changes shape (blue messy cry smear) and size before going on the show, then is very neat on the show, and then jumps back to being smaller with the left eye crying look in the police car.
Correction: The changes are shown in between takes with a large time gap. Before going on the show he had redone his makeup and after the show he cried again smearing the makeup again when he is in the cop car.
There is a scene he is lying at the car engine, next scene he stand up, between these two scene the blue paint is dry and different.
Well firstly, no, he bleeds so that's different but the blue paint stays the same. Can't blame him for sweating either. And secondly, the original mistake doesn't talk about the scene on top of the car but in it.
24th Nov 2019
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Has there ever been any sort of canonical discussion about the morality of droid treatment in any Star Wars titles? They're intelligent/sentient, are treated well by most people, even like friends/pets by some. And yet they also seem to casually get their minds wiped, or if they're destroyed many people shrug rather than mourn. Tools to some, valued comrades to others, it's just a bit all over the place. Idle thought really.
Answer: Lucas has gone on record as to the treatment of droids in Star Wars being a thought-provoking allegory for the way people treat minorities. I've never heard him specifically talk about how it's almost never commented-upon in-universe, but intentionally or not, I'm of the opinion that it's more compelling this way. Why doesn't anybody do anything about the way droids are treated? Well, go around asking people why they don't do anything about the way other people are treated and you'll quickly find out.
Answer: Not in the films, but several of the books removed from canon by Disney mentioned a "droids' rights movement" that decried memory wipes and other dismissals of sentience. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Droid_rights_ (movement).
Solo, which is canon, features a subplot about droid's rights. So not everything has been scrubbed regarding this topic.
Chosen answer: Nobody in the Star Wars universe, except on rare occasions, has shown sympathy towards a droid or any AI. Even though these robots learn, they don't really evolve beyond their programming so they aren't considered "alive" (unlike in other fiction like Wall-E), not even by the most sentimental of people. Organic beings develop attachments to droids, but mostly towards their usefulness, not because they like their personality, not even Luke Skywalker towards R2 or Poe towards BB-8. If they are destroyed, too bad. Memory wiping doesn't remove the droid's original programming either, and their way of talking and manners stay.
In Episode 2, Obi-Wan makes the offhanded comment "Well, if droids could think there'd be none of us here", implying that droids do not actually possess artificial intelligence. R2-D2 seems to be a particularly unusual droid in that he is uncommonly resilient and steadfast, which makes his allies quite fond of him. Poe and BB-8 appear to have a bond that goes beyond simply being attached to the droid's usefulness, but like you say that appears to be a unique case.
Just because he said that doesn't mean they didn't have AI. They think for themselves, so they have AI. Just not as advanced as in other fiction.
The point is raised again later in the film when the cloners state that unlike droids, clones can think for themselves.
12th Nov 2019
The Incredibles (2004)
Question: A few questions about this movie. Firstly, Syndrome's ultimate plan was first testing his prototypes on other supers, using the next had the last been defeated, and all leading up to the final face off with Mr. Incredible. What would Syndrome had done had Mr. Incredible denied the opportunity from Mirage of coming to the island to do the hero work as devised and everything he planned had been spoiled? Secondly, when Mr. Incredible was captured and held hostage in the round electric type of cell, did Syndrome plan for him to just hang there until he died? Thirdly, what made Mirage suddenly have a change of heart after all the working she's done with Syndrome and killing off supers in the past?
Answer: Syndrome's plan worked because even though the superheroes were retired a lot of them missed the old days and wanted to do real superhero work. This opportunity lured a lot of them to the island, including Mr. Incredible. If he hadn't gone there Syndrome would have found others. He kept Mr. Incredible locked up there until his plans of sending the robot were executed. Afterwards he probably would have killed him, perhaps by turning the robot loose on him again but this time in public. Mirage got second doubts when she realised Syndrome didn't care about her or the lives of innocents, I'm guessing a lot of information was kept from her and she simply thought Syndrome was after power and not petty revenge on superheroes.
I'm a little confused about the second and third answers. We saw that Syndrome was trying to destroy the robot while mimicking it (really, using his remote) while he meanwhile had the Incredibles held hostage at his island. How would he have sent Mr. Incredible to the public to be killed by the robot if it were destroyed? Also, if Mirage thought the superhero revenge on Mr. Incredible was minor and the other supers he was killing were innocent, why did she decide to be his assistant and help him in the first place?
I'm sure his first encounter with the robot was just for show, letting the people think he beat it, without actually damaging it. The point was that the robot could not be defeated by any superhero and then everybody would flock to him and he could sell his inventions to make everybody "super" so superheroes will not be necessary anymore. It's somewhere along the lines of that anyway, I've never actually known what his actual plan was. The point was to make an unbeatable robot that only he could defeat by cheating, then sell his inventions to everybody. That I'm sure of. How he was going to take his revenge on supes to the next stage I don't know. Mirage wasn't innocent, she knew supes were being killed by the robot but she thought he did it for power. She also started to like Mr. Incredible I think. Once she realised he didn't care about her or literally anyone else she decided to betray him. Maybe she found out what real power is, and he didn't have it.
13th Nov 2019
Mortal Kombat (1995)
Revealing mistake: When Scorpion explodes, if you pay attention, the explosion doesn't really make "sense." The first "burst" looks fine, but then, midway through the shot, some of the debris in the air suddenly vanishes or fades out a few frames before the second "burst" occurs. Additionally, the way the second "burst" happens gives it away as an added effect, as it doesn't really overlap the background properly. (It looks like an explosion that was filmed on a blue-screen and then just added over top of the footage, as it doesn't interact with the environment properly).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Scorpion is an undead being fighting in another realm of existence. He doesn't necessarily have to explode in a way that "makes sense."
The mistake pertains to issues with the somewhat shoddy execution of the effects, which are a result of the film's production. I don't think him being an undead fighter from another realm of existence is really a valid way to explain this away.
15th Nov 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Corrected entry: Spider-man and Mysterio fight the first Elemental. On the bridge, the elemental beats Peter Parker and he is wet. This could not be, because the water elemental is a hologram. Spider-man couldn't get wet from a hologram. (00:21:35)
Correction: In addition to holograms, Mysterio uses drones to cause real damage. Otherwise, his con would be figured out very easily. In this case, the hologram obscures drones that blast water from the canal (or possibly even collect water and spray it) which then get Peter wet.
I don't think drones are capable of doing that, as we've seen they're only capable of firing guns.
We saw them traveling underwater toward Tower Bridge and firing causing water to spray up.
I think Spider-Man being wet is sufficient evidence that the drones are capable of more than shooting guns. Why call it a mistake when it's perfectly reasonable for it to be drones even if not explicitly shown?
But their firepower could splash water up and make Peter wet though. So he got wet from splashing water from all the firepower upon the water and bridge.
11th Nov 2019
Ender's Game (2013)
Question: Maybe this is explained better in the book, or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. But at the end, when Ender killed all the Formics, did he kill any innocents, or were they all involved in the first invasion? Because Ender never mentions innocents being killed, that would be a pretty good argument as to why it was wrong. If they were all involved in the first invasion, I don't see anything wrong with killing aliens that murdered millions of humans.
Answer: In the book, Ender had grown disillusioned with military school and was depressed. Destroying the entire Formic homeworld was his attempt to force the school to expel him, by enacting a suicidal plan of action so ruthless his superiors would believe him unfit for leadership. In the film it appears that Ender is simply trying to win the game as best he can. As for the Formics themselves, they operate with a hive mind so in a sense, yes they were all "involved" in the invasion of earth. However, wiping out of the entire civilization in retribution, especially once the audience hears the Formic queen express her dismay over the Formic's actions, is evil. The film somewhat glosses over this fact, but in the books it is clear the Formics did not understand that humans were sentient at all because they could not comprehend an intelligent species lacking a shared consciousness.
Yeah misunderstanding is the constant of the book series.
20th Jan 2019
Mortal Kombat (1995)
Question: When Lui Kang fights Reptile, what was Johnny Cage doing this entire time? (01:12:15 - 01:15:50)
Answer: Since the entire fight is focused on Liu Kang and Reptile, he could have possibly waited to see what the outcome of the fight was.
Answer: Wouldn't Johnny Cage want to go in to help his "mate", rather than stand their and watch? The question here (because Reptile is a secret character in MK1 and Raiden saying "In Outworld, you will find another guy") is that can Johnny Cage interfere with the fight, or is that against the rules in this tournament?
Not only is it against the rules, but Raiden never said they'd find another guy. What he said was, "You'll find another guide." The guide being Kitana.
That is indeed against the rules.
4th Nov 2019
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: This question might be more for the book, but Mad Eye said they would have to transport in ways the trace can't detect. But the trace would only detect magic used near an underage person. Harry is the only one who is underage. So they could have used a portkey. I understand that they need to cast a spell to make a portkey but they could have cast the spell before they were near Harry and then transported to the burrow. Or have I made a mistake?
Answer: The trace detects when an underaged wizard casts a magic spell whenever they are away from Hogwarts. It doesn't detect adult wizards using magic near a minor. If a portkey was used to transport Harry, it could have been detected when he touched it because he would be using magic. The safest and least detectable way to move him from point A to B, was to fly him there.
Answer: Two things. 1. You are not allowed to create an unauthorized portkey. The ministry must be aware of it. I think the incantation (portus) is traced. 2. Using a portkey is magical use, so the moment Harry touches it, the ministry would be alerted and possibly know where the portkey transported to.
Then how did Dumbledore get away with it in Order of the Phoenix when he made a portkey to get the children to Grimmauld Place?
Well he is an extremely powerful wizard and the headmaster of Hogwarts. I think he made it at Hogwarts yes? He could have had a trick up his sleeve to do it. Might be a bit more tricky for Mad-Eye and the rest whilst the Ministry is under control of deatheaters. Just too risky.
Also, using magic near an underage wizard isn't traced. Just when it is used by an underage wizard.
No, the trace is meant to detect magic used near an underaged wizard.
The wiki specifically says it's a trace of magic in the vicinity of an underage wizard, not the underage wizard him/herself. It's mentioned working like that by Alastair Moody in the books too.
When Harry used magic to repel the dementors that attacked him and Dudley in Order of the Phoenix, the Ministry of Magic instantly detected that he cast a patronus spell. He was immediately "charged" for using underage magic. What would happen when a young wizard was at home for the summer and holidays and is around adult wizards using magic all the time? The trace would be going off continually for every underaged magic person. It was mentioned in the books that if an underaged wizard did use magic at home, it could be confused with the adults who were casting spells.
Harry once got a warning from the "improper use of magic office" for casting a hover charm, even though it was Dobby who did it. I don't know where you get your information from, but it is wrong. The trace can only detect magic has been used, not who used it. This is explained by Alastair Moody in Deathly Hallows Chapter 4.
3rd Nov 2019
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Corrected entry: In Transfiguration class when professor McGonagall is explaining the lesson you can see that the instructions are mirrored on the blackboard. (00:54:18)
Correction: There are two chalkboards in Professor McGonagall's classroom, both with the same chalk drawings and instructional writing, though the chalkboard on the right has everything backwards on the board. However, none of the actual shots during this scene are flipped, not the closeups, medium shots, or the long shots. Note the part in McGonagall's hair, etc., stays consistent throughout. For whatever their reasons, the filmmakers decided to have identical chalkboards at both sides of the desk, and one with the reverse writing and images as its twin.
And since it's a class about casting spells it's not unlikely McGonagall wrote it in mirror on purpose. Perhaps they need to learn to read mirror since a lot of spells and spellbooks are written like that, a common myth surrounding spells.
17th Jun 2015
Friends (1994)
The One with Mrs. Bing - S1-E11
Question: When we first see Mrs Bing on TV, Jay Leno mentions that she recently got arrested and asks how it came about. Her response is "occasionally, after being intimate with a man, I just get a craving for Kung Pao chicken" This gets a lot of cheers and laughter from the audience and Chandler shouts "that's too much information!" at the TV. What was happening here? Why does what Mrs Bing said get so much of a reaction from everyone and not answer the question she was asked? Am I missing something?
Answer: This is a story about how Chandler's mom got arrested. So she is saying "after being intimate with a man I get a craving for Kung Pao Chicken." So what she is implying is that she is intimate with whomever, and immediately afterwards when orders Kung Pao Chicken. By this she is saying she got arrested at the place where they sell Kung Poa Chicken, because she was being intimate with the individual there. Conclusion she was openly having sex at a Chinese Restaurant.
Answer: I've seen a few answers that are similar to this. It's really unclear to me what the relation to being arrested is and/or why it's too much information. I feel like I'm missing a connection here.
Chosen answer: Nora Bing's remarks got a huge response by her being funny and making the incident about sex. Audiences tend react to titillating anecdotes. Chandler, of course, is always mortified by his mother for not acting her age and being sexually uninhibited.
This answers nothing really.
Answer: I honestly think part of it has been deleted since the original broadcast. I remember her saying something extra that carried on the joke, but watching it on streaming services, it isn't there.
26th Nov 2002
Hocus Pocus (1993)
Corrected entry: The legend is that the Sandersen sisters will be brought back from the grave if a virgin lights the black flamed candle. In fact, that's what happens 300 years after they are burned at Salem. If the citizens of Salem believed in the witches' curse, then why did they leave the candle intact? Why didn't they have a non-virgin destroy it immediately?
Correction: The witches are magic. They probably made it so only a virgin could light or touch the candle.
But the candle and wick already seemed to be previously lit.
It was probably lit before the witches were burned.
Even if it has been previously lit; it's a pretty moot point unless we know it was another virgin on Halloween night who lit it as this was a very specific thing that had to happen for them to come back from the grave. So if it was somebody who tried lighting it on Christmas, wouldn't have worked for the prophecy. As to why no-one tried to destroy it; I'm sure they did but as we can see from the book the witches know magical protections spells so it's a safe bet there's one on the candle too where the flame might simply go out if someone not prophesied to light it try.
22nd Oct 2019
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
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.
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.
How is he imbued by power from God?
How else do you explain him being almost a thousand years old?
Drinking from the cup. How does that make him speak English?
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.
Thats a lot of assumptions. The cup grants immortality, that's it. It doesn't make you a polyglot.
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.
He doesn't have to do anything to keep the cup in the chamber. The seal does that.
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.
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.
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.
9th Feb 2004
The Ring (2002)
Question: When does Rachel realise if she shows the film to someone else she won't die? And if she knew, is that why she showed it to Noah, to kill him on purpose?
Answer: At the end of the movie, she is crying about why she wasn't killed and Noah was. She vocalizes "What did I do, that he didn't?" That's when she sees the copy she made. It wasn't that she just showed it to someone else. She made a copy and Aiden watched that copy. Aiden is why it skipped her.
Almost right. It's just the copy. Copying the video makes it skip you. That's why she has Aiden make a copy as well.
You have to show the copy to someone else as well. That's why Aiden asks Rachel at the very end "What about the person we show it to? What happens to them?"
But doesn't he have less than a day left by then? Hardly a time to relax, they need to make a terrible decision, quickly. I always had the idea making a copy was enough because of that.
He watched the tape the morning of either Rachel's 4th or 5th day, so he should have at least 3 days left by this point. Though it appears the film was being inconsistent with the markings that Samara leaves on the tape's viewers, since Rachel noticed Samara's hand print on Aiden's arm and then his nose started bleeding. For Rachel, she got her nosebleed before receiving the mark on her arm.
Actually, you need to do both: make a copy and show it to someone else. This is further explained in The Ring 2. At the beginning, the guy had made a copy but since the girl covered her eyes and didn't watch the whole thing, he was still killed by Samara. So making a copy is not enough in itself to be spared if no-one else watches it. The same goes for Rachel. She made a copy on the 2nd day, but Becca tells her she only has 4 days left when she visits the psych ward indicating she hadn't been spared yet. It's only after Aidan watches the copy she made that death skips her for good.
Answer: No, it's wrong. Just making a copy won't save you; you need to show it to someone else, and then this someone else is cursed instead of you. The Japanese movie explains it well. Plus, in the official second movie, a man dies from Samara after making the copy because nobody watched it. Also, at the end of the 1st movie, Aiden asks from the copy, "What will happen to the one who will watch it?"
23rd Feb 2019
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: When Mace reflects the force lightning back at Palpatine, did it reveal his true form, or make him that way as a result?
Answer: It was as a result of the lightning over his face.
I do not believe Lucas has ever stated the cause, but it is most likely a combination of things. Palpatine was using a considerable amount of dark force power to hold Mace, and Mace was redirecting it back at him. He may have also allowed the disfigurement on purpose, to get more sympathy from Anakin. An out of left field idea is that this is how he has looked for a while, and Palpatine has been using the force to project a nicer image until it was no longer necessary.
There is no evidence in any of the Star Wars movies that dark force users change in appearance simply from using the dark side of the force, only scarred from facing hardships. His face got badly burned and scarred from the lightning redirected at him. Yes he did it on purpose to show his suffering to Anakin, but it didn't reveal his "true face" or anything. Darth Maul, Dooku nor Kylo Ren ever show any changes in appearance. Vader, Snoke and Sidious are all simply scarred.
He claims to the Senate that the Jedi attacked him, and he has the scars to prove it.
That's true too.
Why wasn't Mace scarred when he didn't have his lightsaber anymore and Palpatine used even more powerful force lightning?
Before he goes out of the window, you can briefly see he isn't when the lightning isn't in the way.
That's a good question. I'd say it wasn't as intense. Palpatine's exposure was quite intense and close to his face whilst Windu got it all over his body. As you know Luke was hit by lightning as well in ROTJ, but also more on his body and from a distance.
My strongest idea is that Mace's lightsaber had a lot of impact with the force lightning towards Palpatine, being up-close to him. I also think he did do it to be disfigured in appearance and gain more sympathy from Anakin under the impression that he was "weak," along with the the force lightning itself.
I also think the scarring story to the senate was an afterthought at some point, but he intentionally allowed the disfigurement with the force lightning for more sympathy along with the pain of the lightning itself.
3rd May 2004
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Corrected entry: Ichabod figures out that the headless body thought to be of Lady Van Tassel couldn't be her because the cut on the hand showed "No bloodflow, no clotting, no healing... When this cut was made...this woman was already dead". Yet in Lady Van Tassel's flashback of her decapitating Sarah and cutting her hand there is an unforgettably orangish stream of blood coming out of the dead girl's wound. This image clashes with his observation.
Correction: Of course blood would leave the wound, because the blood was already there in the veins. However, the heart would no longer be beating in the girl, which would stop the bloodflow from continuing, and eventually clotting and partially healing, like the hand of Lady Van Tassel.
When somebody dies, all of the blood in the body quickly coagulates.
Lady Van Tassel cut the hand of the servant girl immediately after death. It would not have had time to coagulate.
Blood does not coagulate in the body after death, it seperates into plasma and bloodcells, gravity then sinks it. Coagulation is an active process. "Dead" blood does not coagulate.
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.