Stupidity: Dr. Cocteau's choice to unleash an enhanced Simon Phoenix without any way to restrain him is incredibly reckless and stupid. Even if Simon were to kill Eager Friendly, in the best case situation, you'd still have a madman with total computer access, martial arts knowledge, etc., that you would have no way to rein in. Sure, he can't kill Dr. Cocteau, but what would stop him from say, holding the city hostage or something? Why not add in a kill code or something to keep him in check?
lionhead
5th Jan 2024
Demolition Man (1993)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Who says he didn't? Cocteau has put in mental conditioning compelling Phoenix to kill Edgar Friendly and make him unable to kill Cocteau. Who says he hasn't put in something that makes him kill himself after the deed is done? Or perhaps paralyze him so he can be put back on ice. It's just that Cocteau didn't count on the fact that his henchmen could kill him. He doesn't care about how dangerous he is, not until he has done the deed.
Dr. Cocteau is a narcissistic egomaniac type that would see himself as a king or a god, even. And Simon is making him very angry. He even tells Simon, "you're beginning to be more trouble than you're worth..." Someone with an ego like Cocteau wouldn't stand for Simon's antics for very long. And would happily enjoy putting Simon back in his place by shocking, paralyzing, etc.
But he first needs him to kill Friendly. Until he does that, he'll let him play. He still sees no danger to himself.
5th Jan 2024
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: The ending of Back to the Future, Marty says he's not going to the lake as the car is 'wrecked'. All the family react as if he's talking about the BMW. They rush out and see it is fine. But they know Marty has the Toyota truck - why would they not think he meant his car is wrecked'? I know he says car not "truck" but he's talking about going up to the lake - he wouldn't be going in his Dad's BMW. So is this a mistake or bad script writing? (01:49:00 - 01:51:00)
Answer: Why wouldn't he go in the BMW? Going to the lake doesn't mean off-road driving, it might be a nice paved road all the way to a touristy spot. I don't think it's a mistake or bad writing.
Answer: It would've simply been down to the pure shock of what Marty was saying. The second he said "The car's wrecked", they dropped what they were doing and went to check. They didn't even care about the first part of Marty's sentence at this point, as all that was going through their heads would've been "Has something happened to the car?"
18th Jun 2023
Bad Boys (1995)
Other mistake: In the film, Lawrence and Smith's characters are Narcotics detectives with Miami Dade Police. There's no way they should be at any homicide investigations. Narc and homicide are totally two different units within law enforcement, so it's unlikely narcotics units would be at a homicide scene. Being the scene where they're investigating Smith's friend getting killed, and then they stumble across the dead body at the mansion.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The captain called Mike and Marcus to the scene to help because it appeared related to the missing drugs. They were there to find leads to the missing heroin.
Yes, that could be correct, but the chances of that happening are slim to none. A captain from Narcotics wouldn't even have authorization to call his detectives to a murder scene to help out homicide detectives working a murder. Any information or clues would be collected and shared with other units or agencies if deemed appropriate.
30th Dec 2023
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Question: Had Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan been able to both survive and defeat Maul, would this mean Sidious would not be able to manipulate Anakin anymore? Or would the Sith Lord have simply tried a different plan, besides emotional manipulation, to try to trick an Anakin trained under Qui-Gon into the dark side?
Answer: I don't think his plans would change. Qui-Gon is just another Jedi Master training Anakin, nothing much different because Obi-Wan was trained by him as well, after all. Plus, Qui-Gon much more believes Anakin is the chosen one, so he would probably allow Anakin a lot more than Obi-Wan would, including his relationships with Palpatine and Padme, which both are more important for Anakin's switch to the dark side.
I (not who submitted the question) wonder if Palpatine actually wanted Darth Maul to be killed by Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, or both. It seems like he mostly trained Maul to fight. Maul seemed to know little about the plotting, scheming, and political dealings. Dooku was capable in those areas, and was skilled at fighting. He was probably more useful while Palpatine waited to turn Anakin.
Not sure about that. I think he genuinely thought Darth Maul was properly trained to defeat Jedi. I don't think Palpatine planned ahead in terms of apprentices, except Anakin. But Darth Maul was before he knew Anakin. I don't think Sith are easy to find either, so Palpatine needed Maul for a lot of things more than just kill Jedi. It is too convenient however that every apprentice he had served his plans perfectly. Because I don't see Maul lead the separatists.
I was under the impression that Palpatine knew about Anakin ever since Shmi was chosen to be Anakin's mother. I might be wrong. This is an interesting discussion, though - I appreciate your response. Some think that Maul had limited use of the Force and was more of a trained assassin. But, if that were true, why call him a Sith apprentice? As you say, it's hard to imagine him being a Separatist leader.
I do not have any knowledge regarding any books written or other sources that might be considered canon, as have been mentioned in other comments here recently. My knowledge is purely the movies. As per the movies, Palpatine only learned of Anakin after the Battle of Naboo.
20th Dec 2023
Aliens (1986)
Question: I have a question regarding some of the slang used in the film. During the briefing just before the marines go down to the planet, Hudson asks, "Is this going to be a stand-up fight or another bug-hunt?" And what does Gorman mean when he says they think xenomorphs are involved? People say xenomorph is a fancy term for the species of aliens in this film series, however, it's made clear that at the beginning of the movie this is an unknown species, so that term couldn't refer specifically to them.
Answer: In addition to the other answers, I'd like to point out that xenomorph simply means strange or alien form.
Answer: It wasn't exactly an "unknown" species. "The Company," the commercial operation funding everything, knew the alien creatures existed and had wanted them as bio-weapons since the first film. It's unclear what Gorman knew but likely little more than his troops. Burke knew about the creatures and his purpose was to collect one, the same as Ash in the original "Alien." The term "xenomorph" is a general term that could be applied to any extraterrestrial non-humanoid species. Hudson is asking if they're hunting a non-sentient being.
Yeah, Gorman had no clue about the xenomorphs whatsoever. No way. The Company did, Burke is part of the Company, but Gorman isn't. He, like the others, is just cannon fodder. The term is used as you describe it though. You gotta understand that the Company itself probably doesn't know how a full-grown xenomorph actually looks like. Not until Alien 4. They just know there is alien biotech to be claimed.
5th Dec 2023
Jurassic Park (1993)
Question: The second Nedry notices the Dilophosaurus in the jeep with him, why didn't he quickly get out and shut the door, trapping it inside? He had a second or two before the Dilophosaurus started growling and attacking him, plenty of time to get out.
Answer: There are some additional factors that would interfere with his ability to move quickly: He was obese (so not very agile) and his vision was impaired (he dropped his glasses and was sprayed with gunk in his eyes).
Answer: In addition to what RayWest and LionHead wrote, I would like to point out that it's easy to say what a person should have done. You're watching the situation as an outsider. Granted, this is a fantasy situation in a movie about dinosaurs, but the mentality is realistic: people who are actually in a situation don't always think of something that seems obvious.
Answer: The fact that Nedry was in a car could've been giving him a false sense of security. Yes, he could've gotten out of the car, but then he'd be out in the open, making it easier for him to get attacked by any other dinos that were lurking about. In the car, he probably (incorrectly) assumed that the Dilophosaurus would have restricted movement due to how small cars are, making it harder for it to attack.
22nd Nov 2023
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Why did Count Dooku tell Anakin and Obi-Wan to hand over their swords/lightsabers? Did he actually think they would do it?
Answer: He tells them to draw out their lightsaber, to not delay, and just start the fight.
But he says, "We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor," as if he is trying not to fight.
The "mess" I think he is referring to is the pointless debate they will go into if they don't simply start dueling. A few seconds later, he says, "I've been looking forward to this", so he always wanted to fight. You have to understand that Dooku knows Palpatine is his master, and he has been ordered by Palpatine to get Anakin over to the dark side. The only way for him to do that is to best Anakin in dueling, showing him the dark side is stronger. Little did he know.
22nd Nov 2023
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Why did Obi-Wan go to Padme's apartment (as she told Anakin later) to discuss being worried about Anakin? He either doesn't know about their marriage, or he pretends to not know because Anakin would be expelled from the Jedi Order. In order to keep up appearances, it should be strange for him to visit her home.
Answer: He is hoping she knows where he is. He hopes to convince her to tell him so he can confront him.
The question is not about Obi-wan talking to Padme before the fight on Mustafar. It's about the off-screen visit, when Anakin asked Padme if Obi-wan had been to the apartment. She said yes, Obi-wan came by that morning because he was worried about Anakin. Why would he stop at her apartment if he "isn't supposed to know" that she is Anakin's wife?
Okay, my bad. Wasn't clear to me.
27th Oct 2023
Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990)
Question: Given Kate met Gizmo in the previous movie, how could she mistake Daffy for him? He looks different from Gizmo.
Answer: She only saw him briefly, never in full light either. Plus, it was some time ago. I don't think she would suspect there is another one either.
At the end of the first movie, after killing the gremlins, everyone is at Billy's house, and Kate puts a thermometer in Gizmo's mouth and looks directly at him while doing it, giving her plenty of time to look at him.
Still, very briefly, still in low light. She has had way less interaction with Gizmo overall.
7th Dec 2008
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Question: Extended Edition: What is the point of the avalanche of skulls that the Army of the Dead throw down upon Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli? Surely the AOTD would want to keep Aragorn alive; he was the only way that they could break their curse. Or was the avalanche of skulls something that the AOTD were not responsible for? PS: I don't want any answers like "Peter Jackson put it there because it looked cool", I want answers that fit within the context of the film.
Chosen answer: With the last of the line of Isildur dead, there would be no one left to hold them to their oath and they'd be free to 'pass on.'
The king would have no reason to believe that killing Aragorn would free him. He thought the line was broken. He was surprised that there was an heir left alive. Therefore, he would have believed that they were never going to pass on because there was nobody to free them. Immediately attempting to kill the last person that could free them seems like an odd conclusion to come to within minutes of meeting Aragorn. A possible reason is that the army was leaving, so the magic holding the skulls stopped.
10th Oct 2023
Starship Troopers (1997)
Stupidity: When the invasion of planet P begins, we see the Rodger Young get hit. In the explosion sequence, we are treated to people sitting around tables in what can only be described as a mess hall exploding. In a military environment, this would be a time where everyone would be at their "battle stations". Nobody would be having chow or off-time when the ship is expecting combat. In this case, it was a planned troop landing.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Yes, it was stupidity, but it was an intentional depiction that supports the plot. During the landing, the Captain is completely surprised by the bombardment and says something like, "This isn't light uncoordinated resistance." The fleet's lack of preparedness at Planet P is a major plot point that later results in the replacement of the Air Marshal in command.
No, you are talking about a different sequence. When they are unprepared, they are doing an invasion of Klendathu, the Bug's home planet. This is earlier in the movie and the Rodger Young was only slightly damaged in that. The stupidity is about the invasion of Planet P at the end of the movie, where the Rodger Young is cut in half.
4th Sep 2021
Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)
Corrected entry: Kirsty tells Detective Ronson to destroy the mattress because Julia died on it and could come back. In the first Hellraiser, Julia died on the stairway after being stabbed to death by Frank. (01:16:12 - 01:16:41)
Correction: She ended up on the mattress. When Kristy grabbed the box and Pinhead says his famous line "we have such sights to show you".
No, she didn't. Julie was murdered on the stairwell by Frank in the first movie. If you rewatch the movie, you'll see it. The timestamp that was posted for this mistake is for the first movie, not this one.
After Julia was stabbed and drained at the stairwell, the Cenobites took her and put her on the mattress, peeling off her face with chains. She was probably still alive when they did that. It's there where Kirsty takes the box from her hands. The proper timestamp for that scene in the first movie is 1:23:23.
12th Oct 2023
Stargate (1994)
Corrected entry: For both opening the Earth gate (they mention having never gotten beyond six symbols), then opening the Abydos gate after Daniel Jackson knows the first six symbols from that cavern, why can't they simply use trial and error to find the seventh symbol? For 40-odd symbols apiece on both, it would only take approximately that many guesses by process of elimination.
Correction: This mistake has already been corrected, twice. The military in control of the project might not have allowed them to experiment with different symbols simply because they didn't know what it might do. Not fully far fetched since the entire compound starts shaking when entering the 6th symbol. It might explode for all they know.
Then the Abydos gate alone. Six symbols down. One to go. 40 odd guesses, easy enough, less than an hour.
You missed the point of the correction. It could have been 4 options and still not worth the risk of entering the wrong symbol.
Well, we don't know if the gate on Abydos makes everything shake. So, I'd say there is a point there. But they only discover the symbols on Abydos till later. By then, they are already at the tribe, I think.
7th Aug 2023
Oppenheimer (2023)
Factual error: No one would have used the phrase "black hole" in 1939. The term "black hole" was first used in 1963 in "Life" and "Science News" and by Ann Ewing in an article in January of 1964. Princeton physicist John Wheeler popularised the term.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Nobody uses the term "black hole" in the movie, only the term "dark star". Oppenheimer once refers to it as a hole in space, but not a black hole.
When Oppenheimer walks into the room of cheering people (after he says he'll be in Pasadena), someone says "paper on black holes, it's in!"
Ah, yes, I see. I wonder, though, if it's really that unlikely someone would call it a black hole before it was popularized? It is essentially what they are. Certainly, it's possible somebody before 1963 called it that without it ending up in a paper. Just a coincidence, then.
5th Oct 2023
Goldeneye (1995)
Question: Was any reason ever given as to why Bond's gadget-filled car was barely used in this film? It seems odd to give the series a fresh start in many ways, make a big deal about his car with missiles inside the lights, and then he drives it for 30 seconds and gives it away. Why bother giving him a car at all?
Chosen answer: There hadn't been a Bond film for seven years, and it was a new Bond. They wanted to get away from the gadgets and show him at his best. It was a way to let people accept Pierce Bronsan, watching what he can do. He put a lot of Sean Connery into it.
I can see that, but it just seems weird to highlight the features the car has and then not use them. Would have been simpler to omit it entirely, but presumably BMW wanted some product placement.
According to Wikipedia, the deal with BMW came at the last stage in production, so they were only able to put the car in the movie but not make scenes where the gadgets are actually used. I can imagine they'd have to rewrite parts of the script and take more time filming to do that.
16th Aug 2023
The Longest Day (1962)
Factual error: All throughout the movie, whenever some German officer, speaking German, wants someone to shoot off some artillery piece, he screams, "FIRE!" German words for shoot include schießen, drehen, trieb, aufnehmen, abschießen, erlegen, spross, jagen, and ballern, but certainly not "fire".
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: But they don't say "shoot," they say "feuer," which is German for "fire." This is the accurate word for the German command to firing a weapon. Btw, most of the words you take as an example don't mean "to shoot," but are only associated with shooting. Like "jagen," which is German for "hunting."
Nay - They are screaming "FIRE!" They aren't saying feuer. It probably is indeed illegal to yell "Feuer!" in a German crowded theatre. Lol. My original assertion of a mistake in this movie was because they go to great lengths to specifically always be having the Germans speaking German with subtitles - to not be one of these war movies where all the German officers are speaking English (usually in a refined British accent for some reason - lol) - and I maintain they dropped that in this case and went for the English word - and it's a mistake - Whatever the word feuer means, even if it does, or CAN mean SHOOT!, they CLEARLY (and multiple times throughout all the battle scenes) are screaming the English word "fire," not the German word FEUER. The two words may be close, but they do not sound the same. Watch the movie and I'm sure you will hear what I'm saying. You will hear "FIE ur," not "few ERR." There is no long 'I' sound in feuer.
You are entitled to your opinion, whether you hear "fire" or "feuer," but I hear them say "feuer" enough (Omaha beach scene). About everything else you say, I think the problem is easy - you don't understand the German language. Now, I'm not a native German speaker, but my knowledge of German is adequate enough to know that the German word for firing a weapon is "feuer." I'm also pretty sure the English word "fire" means "flames" as well, so your logic is flawed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO1Em0NCCzE. At the 2:03 timestamp, you can hear a German say "feuer" to firing a weapon.
Ok, I just went there and no one says anything at 2:03. (If you mean two minutes and three seconds into the movie). Maybe you meant two hours and three minutes? Gimme a day or so to watch the whole movie again, and I will mark every time I think they say "feuer" and every time they say "fire." If I'd heard "FEW AIR," I wouldn't have asserted that there was any mistake. I would have assumed that was German. I hear some actor from New Jersey screaming "FIE UR" every time - lol.
I gave a link to a YouTube video of Bundeswehr soldiers training. In the video, at 2:03, you hear a German say "feuer" when ordering to fire the artillery. Just to prove, Germans say "feuer" when firing weapons. Plus an idea of how they pronounce it.
Yes, what happened is, I copied and pasted that link - but I included the period you put at the end - and that just brings up Youtube movies, so I thought you meant for me to go to The Longest Day movie - lol. My bad. Again, I acknowledge that there is no way to account for accents and dialects - you made a good point - I just always hear what sounded like some actor from New Jersey saying FIE URR! - (Or should I say JOIZEE) - lol.
Maybe that's one time they did it the correct way - there are more than one times throughout the movie where you hear "FIRE" and not "FEUER" - they are not pronounced the same.
Ok - I am GIVING you the understanding that both English and German have a word that means both flames and shooting. I will acknowledge that. But you are not understanding my logic. I repeat: Irrespective of whether any German officer ever screamed "feuer" to mean "shoot", you will, beyond doubt, hear that very strong, long 'I' sound every time they scream the word. Anyone who is reading this is invited to watch the movie, and the word FIRE, pronounced "fie ur" with the long 'I' sound, will be heard at least two or three times - never "few air." Feuer is, (supposed to be), pronounced "few air." But, then, what does "supposed to" really mean, when it comes to any language? I guess differences in accents have to be considered. I mean, how many English words sound different than they seem to be spelled? - tons.
Think logically about the fact that these actors in the movie are actual Germans, and they are supposed to speak German in the movie. So, absolutely no reason for them to say "fire." They can pronounce it however they want; they mean to say "feuer" and not "fire."
Yes, but I hear FIRE, not Feuer. But then, a lot of British people pronounce Lia fail as LAYAFOIL, so I will admit that there may be no way to prove my theory that the makers of this movie abandoned their attempt to stick with German and went with the English word FIRE in this one instance.
I agree, it's more likely they're saying "Feuer." Even Google Translate says "fire at will" translates to "Feuer frei." But the pronunciation is closer to "fire" than what you're suggesting. You seem to be implying "feuer" is pronounced more like "führer."
Yes, a German might be saying "feuer" some time in some actual war, but in this movie, you will hear "fire" every time. Go watch the movie and you will definitely hear that long 'I' sound. Ultimately, this may be impossible to totally resolve, as I guess there may be no way to determine how different Germans with different accents might pronounce something. I hear the dude from New Jersey saying FIE UR! lol.
23rd Apr 2009
X-Men (2000)
Question: Jean and Storm combine their powers to get Wolverine to the top of The Statue of Liberty. Why is this? Wouldn't Jean's telekinesis be sufficient enough to levitate Wolverine to the top without Storm's power?
Chosen answer: Jean's powers were not that powerful at the time.
But they were powerful enough to lift cars, water, etc. when she was like 7.
It's more that she doesn't have enough control over it.
In addition to what Lionhead said, Xavier also says he altered her mind in "X-Men: The Last Stand" by creating psychic barriers to lock out the Phoenix personality, which also seemed to have altered her memory. So it's entirely possible (and likely) her overall power reduced when that happened, and didn't start to fully come back until the events of "X2."
14th Jul 2023
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Question: At the start, she was to drive the truck to get gas. She never got there, and yet was able to drive all over. How?
Answer: Furiosa was not getting gas for the war rig; it is presumably fully fuelled. Furiosa was to fill the tank with gas to bring it back to be used for other vehicles.
If you're going to get gas, why have a full tank in the war rig? Put enough in it to be able to get to Gas town, pulling the attached round tank. Fill the round tank and fill up the war rig. Return with lots of gas in a full round tank and a full war rig.
I believe there is some confusion here with how the gas tank system works on the war rig. The truck itself has its own gas tank; the tank that is being towed is completely separate. It's exactly the same as real-life gas trucks.
Why does that question even need to be answered? You're going to use gas going there and coming back. It doesn't matter if the war rig was full or not when it left. Assuming they're going to be gassing the war rig up once they get there to collect the gas, it's going to come back with the exact same amount of gas no matter what. So it really makes no difference whatsoever. Also, what happens if they get delayed along the way? If they only have enough gas to get to Gas Town, but something happens, they'll just get stuck.
I agree, it's not very smart to fill the war rig with just enough gas to get to town. But it sounds like they're saying take whatever you can out of the war rig, and you'd have that much extra gas when they get back. For example, if the rig held 25 gallons and only needed 5 gallons to get to town, you can take out 20 gallons. The rig then arrives in town empty, fills up, and comes back with 20 gallons in the tank. So now you have 40 gallons instead of just 20 (plus whatever the tank holds).
I think the big point is what Furiosa was planning. She filled the gas tank of the truck up to be able to go further with it; she wasn't planning on getting the gas anyway.
Ok, I can understand that... but I still don't see why it's a question that needs to be answered, hahaha. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why every tiny detail needs an explanation or answer, especially when it doesn't really matter for the story.
Answer: What she did most likely took months of planning. Who she could trust to help her. How exactly she could smuggle the girls out, and most importantly, gaining the trust of the boss to the point where he believed she was his obedient slave who could never betray him.
Answer: Nobody knew the war rig was full of gas. They thought she was going to fill the tanker and come back, not smuggle out the girls.
Sorry, can't believe that. The boss guy controlled everything. He would know where and how much gas there was. Also, lowering the truck empty would be a lot different than lowering it fully loaded.
The truck was supposed to be empty when it left. She was taking an empty tank to be filled, but smuggled the wives inside. It weighed probably 300 pounds more than it was supposed to, but that would be imperceptible to the people operating the elevator. The war rig likely weighs several tons.
It's not empty, it is filled with water. The wives were hiding in the tractor.
23rd Oct 2012
Men in Black 3 (2012)
Corrected entry: The boglodites invasion starts when agent J is about to time jump. It doesn't make sense for them to wait 40 years to invade Earth in the the new reality (after Boris succeeds to kill agent K and steal the arcnet) especially when we hear that they would starve to death before finding another planet to consume in case they fail to penetrate Earth. This reasoning is confirmed when we know that in the original timeline they are extinct 40 years ago, which means they were already very very hungry at that time and couldn't have the luxury to wait few more years.
Correction: This is explained if you listen very carefully. The boglodites planet is 20 lightyears away from earth, meaning, it would take Boris 20 years to get back to his planet and then another 20 to return ot invade Earth equalling 40 years.
That's so totally wrong in many ways, not the least of which, that's not how light-years work. More importantly, in the original timeline, it is said that the Boglodites tried and failed to invade 40 years before - meaning shortly after the arcnet was deployed. So, Boris takes the device, and suddenly they decide to wait 40 years? This plot hole still makes no sense.
I think the arcnet prevents them from invading 40 years later, effectively defeating them because they can't reach another planet in time. They didn't invade in 1969 originally. So with the arcnet present (not deployed), the boglodites never invade.
Even if we accept this correction, it still doesn't explain why they didn't starve to death! However, the explanation still doesn't hold. Remember, the Boglodites' fleet "was" there, upon us on Earth, 40 years ago, yet they failed because the ArcNet was deployed. They all came to invade Earth along with Boris number 1. In the altered timeline, Boris 2 travels back in time, kills K, steals the ArcNet, but there is still no reason and no explanation whatsoever for them waiting and starving to death.
They didn't invade in 1969, they invade in the present. J enters a different reality, one without K, but he is is still in his own time. That's where the Boglodites invade because there is no ArcNet. Then he goes back to 1969 so they can deploy the ArcNet and prevent the Boglodites from coming to Earth at all.
20th Oct 2021
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
Other mistake: In the landing scene inside the dropship there is a release valve for all the mechanical suits. No one seems to use this valve to get released, they all just drop spontaneously. Except for Cage, who has to hit the valve every time in order to get released. (00:18:50 - 00:33:04)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They all wait until they are released automatically. Probably deploys at a certain distance from the beach.
I'm not sure this answers the mistake. There's no apparent reason for deployment to be automatic for everyone except Cage. It could be argued that everyone else knew to select "automatic drop," but Cage didn't. However, since that's not covered in the film, it can't be used to explain what happened.
Well, I said it's automatic for them, but it doesn't really have to be. They all know how it works, and he doesn't. They probably have a different method of releasing since their suit is unlocked and they know the system, whilst the red valve next to their head is probably an extra safety measure. He uses it over and over again because it seems to work, whilst it is possible the normal release on his suit doesn't.
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.