Question: Loki said he was impressed about Thor lying to him. When did Thor lie to him?
lionhead
20th Apr 2019
Thor: The Dark World (2013)
15th Apr 2019
Thirteen Ghosts (2001)
Question: Considering how varied their backstories were, it's hard to say how evil some were. Who is the most evil ghost?
Answer: The Jackal is bad, as a sadistic rapist and murderer, but he also recognized this in himself and had himself committed for treatment. When his asylum burned down, he intentionally chose to stay behind. I'd say the worst is the Juggernaut, an unrepentant serial killer.
The Bound Woman wasn't much better. She never killed anyone, but she also was an abusive jerk who got killed by an ex. In the film she lures Bobby down where there is grave danger and she thinks it's funny, much to the chagrin of the wife of the family.
Answer: Well it's mentioned the jackal is the Charles Manson of the ghosts. I'd say that's he most evil one, probably the most angry one.
How evil is the Great Child and Dire Mother? The first committed a massacre but was also trying to do the right thing and was severely handicapped; the latter helped raise her son horribly but also suffered from a lot of mental and emotional issues like PTSD it seems.
They aren't half as bad as the jackal. They are both estranged, traumatized, angry ghosts but not necessarily evil. These ghosts are together for the fact they have had bad experiences, either self made or happened to them, not because they are bad themselves. In order to understand it more there should be more information about the book and ritual they are involved in.
What about the Juggernaut?
Well that one killed Dennis along with The Hammer. I'd say that one is pretty evil, also considering his history of being a serial killer before his death. Not as maniacal as the Jackal though.
Good thing you mention the Hammer. I don't think he's really evil, misguided yea but he seems to be after the ones responsible for the evil plan which involved him being trapped. We see he seems calm towards Maggie. In life he was an honorable person who only killed his families' murderers and the law was corrupted, hence why he was brutally killed but not the higher ups responsible for his families' death.
Basically the Angry Princess was tragic, Great Child excusable because of mental handicaps and good intentions, Hammer is justified, Jackal and Juggernaut are unexcused, though some sympathy for them because they went insane.
I actually think it's the Juggernaut, as even the Jackal showed remorse for his crimes while he was alive. While the Juggernaut was just a murderer who only stopped because he was shot down by police.
21st Jun 2004
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Question: Did Jesus really invent the table? I don't remember that in the Bible.
Answer: Um, no, he didn't. The Egyptians had tables (that wouldn't look that out of place in a modern house) around 2000 years before the birth of Christ.
Answer: I believe Jesus was just helping his Father Joseph who was a carpenter.
23rd Apr 2009
Jurassic Park (1993)
Question: Wouldn't John Hammond be just a little bit worried at how animal rights activists may react to his park feeding live animals (like goats and cows) to the dinosaurs, and the damage it could do to the park's future?
Chosen answer: There are several factors to consider. First, zoos do feed live food to some exhibit animals that will not otherwise eat, like feeding live mice to some types of reptiles. Also, Jurassic Park is still top secret and is not yet open to the public, and therefore Hammond and the staff are, at this point, unconcerned about that and may change their practices later. Another consideration is that the park is in a foreign country that may have less stringent rules and regulations regarding zoo and aquarium practices; Hammond is likely paying them well to establish his park there and is bringing in tourism dollars. Finally, Hammond simply may be unconcerned about it, convinced that his fantastic park will be such a huge success and public demand to see the dinosaurs so great that it will overrule objections by animal rights groups.
Answer: In Jurassic World they still use animals so this isn't a concern.
What happens in a later movie is irrelevant to the question.
14th Apr 2019
Thirteen Ghosts (2001)
Question: After Cyrus dies, why don't the ghosts turn on the others, such as Arthur who is nearby them? A couple of ghosts such as the Torso and Withered Lover didn't kill Cyrus and are more or less harmless, but some of the bad ones like the Juggernaut, Hammer and Jackal did. Was this a minor overlook?
Answer: The ghosts are not stupid; they were trapped inside that house by Cyrus. They just punished him for that and then they leave. They have no quarrel with Arthur or the others, probably even realizing they were freed by them.
I do remember the Angry Princess wanted to stab a couple of the ladies, and the Jackal was pure insanity, but with those two they could simply have been tired of the whole mess. We see just before they cross over that the Jackal was howling with laughter.
They were really pissed off being trapped in that house, and not really rational thinking people, being ghosts and all. Anyone alive would be a potential target as long as they are trapped.
25th Apr 2004
Thirteen Ghosts (2001)
Question: I was just wondering, why isn't Jean violent? The psychic said that all the ghosts are violent because they died a violent death and that's why Cyrus wanted them, so why is she the only one who isn't violent?
Answer: She didn't die a violent death. Jean is the Withered Lover, meaning that she died after a long, wasting illness. This is the only ghost that is not violent, because the pain it causes is emotional, not physical.
Except Jean didn't die from an illness but was instead killed in a fire, hence the burns on her body.
Could be since Jean died as a result of saving her family and was an accident, she isn't that bad. We can tell this makes sense with some other ghosts: the kid with an arrow was an accidental death, the handicapped man was protecting his mom, and that mom was meek and calm in life and was quickly killed anyhow. The two that avert this trend are the torso, who was brutally killed though is more or less harmless, and the bound woman who was a jerk but quickly killed as well, and lifts Cyrus to his death.
Wasn't the Torso a harmless ghost? We never see it attack anyone, and when Bobby runs off scared it is because the torso is moving to the head which happens to be near Bobby. Then we don't see the Torso lift Cyrus and to help matters the Withered Lover is seen standing on the Torso's place at the end.
Answer: For that matter the Dire Mother didn't die a painful death either, she just died of suffocation. Her mentally disabled son did, though.
The dire mother was kidnapped and put in a sack. I'd say that's a violent death.
Well, somewhat. But not nearly as bad as most of the other ghosts. Except for the First Born Son who was instantly and quickly killed by accident.
27th Jun 2011
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Corrected entry: In the scene when Jimmy Dolittle is standing on the carrier talking to Rafe about the reason for the Raid there is no wind. This is impossible as the Hornet was steaming at over 30 Knots which means there would have been a wind of over 30 miles an hour going across the deck and it would have been heaving up and down as the seas were rough for the trip.
Correction: The carrier would be sailing into the wind as the B25s would be taking off soon.
When they actually launched they were still 10 hours away from actual take off, they didn't go against the wind yet. They had to do that the moment the decision was made to launch.
Correction: This phenomenon is called 'apparent wind'. If they are traveling the same direction as the wind at roughly the same speed, they would not feel the wind.
For this to happen, the wind would have to only come from one direction. The wind doesn't stay in the same direction for any length of time, especially when it is blowing at 30 knots.
Correction: Firstly, there is definitely wind, their jackets are all bulged up. Secondly, the trip took 2 weeks. It wasn't bad weather the entire way and they were talking about the medals days before April 18th when the weather was rougher. They intentionally did the operation before the end of April when the weather was going to turn bad.
15th Mar 2019
The Patriot (2000)
Corrected entry: When Benjamin Martin meets with Cornwallis about the prisoner exchange and brings the dogs in (Great Danes or otherwise), Cornwallis refers to them as "boys." The black dog is female.
Correction: "Boy" for dogs is gender neutral. A lot of owners of female dogs call it a boy. Certainly with 2 dogs you'd never say "come boy and girl."
I have 3 dogs, 1 male, 2 female. No one in the family calls them boys. Sorry but I don't buy that explanation. I think it was just a miss.
1 example, an example where the females are the majority. Not really a good example I'd say. Again, "boys" is gender neutral. Also, he says it once, just once. Are you saying it is not possible for someone to call a male and female dog "boys"? It's not a movie mistake.
It is entirely possible that the film-makers chose to have a female dog play a male dog. For example, in the TV show Lassie, Lassie is played by a male collie even though it is well-established that Lassie is a female. A more recent example is the reverse, where on the CBS show Seal Team, there is a dog on there named Cerberus who is male, but is in fact played by a female named Dita.
It should be noted that people have submitted mistakes for the wrong sexed animal being used (i.e. a male dog playing a female). But really to be considered a character mistake, it would have to be out of character for the person calling a female (or male) animal "boy" (or "girl"). Calling a male and female dog "boys" doesn't seem out of character enough to be a mistake.
15th Mar 2019
The Green Mile (1999)
Question: Paul lived to be an old old man because John touched him. Did Melinda live to be an old women since John healed her of cancer? Nothing was ever said about her but Mr. Jingles lived to be an old mouse.
Answer: John Coffey only transferred "a piece of myself [himself]" to Paul, intentionally and Mr. Jingles, unintentionally. Paul didn't have that power after John cured his UTI and Mr. Jingles didn't have it after John cured him from the attack by Percy. The movie is very clear about that.
Answer: Actually, Paul does mention Melinda as one of the people he has lost along the way. No mention is made of how long she lived, but I would assume that John simply cured her tumor, and she lived the rest of her life as a normal woman.
Answer: Yes she lived for very long and ailment free. But you gotta know Elaine was already much older than Paul was, so even though she lived very long, Paul outlived her. He specifically mentioned her, saying something in the lines of "eventually I even outlived Elaine."
I think you are confusing Melinda and Elaine. Elaine is the woman Paul is recounting his story to, she is considerably younger than him and yet he outlives her. Melinda is the wife of the warden who John Coffey heals. It is not said how long she lives but since Paul specifically mentions his long life being a curse for his role in John's execution, we can assume she was not particularly long lived as he was.
Yes, of course. Melinda. I got the idea that the people who John Coffey heals have long life without ailments. Paul and the mouse are the living proof of that, so why not Melinda? I meant to say Melinda was I think already older than Paul when she was healed by Coffey (although the actress was 40 when this film was made) and thus her life was extended, but less so. She may have died even after Paul's wife, even though he mentions her first. It's still probably been a while though.
Melinda's fate after John heals her is never mentioned. Paul believes he has been cursed with long life as punishment for his role in John's execution. That to me indicates that Melinda didn't live a particularly long life. If she had Paul would have no reason to believe he was being punished.
Besides Mr. Jingles.
Paul mentions Melinda by name when recounting the people that he lost along the way. "Hal and Melinda" are the first names he mentions.
Answer: It would appear, based on what Paul says, that only he and Mr. Jingles were gifted (cursed?) with long life. Paul specifically mentions outliving his family and friends and is shown outliving Elaine as well. Paul speculates that his long life is punishment for his role in executing John, but he says nothing of why Mr. Jingles lives for so long.
Paul says that he believed that what happened to Mr. Jingles was an accident. Meaning he was never supposed to have a long life but, during Del's execution, a small bit of John's healing power accidentally went into Mr. Jingles.
20th Feb 2018
The Thing (1982)
Corrected entry: The big burly guy with the sweater has a heart attack. When his chest is opened it is soon discovered that he has been assimilated, meaning he was no longer human at that point and would not have had a heart attack.
Correction: The alien entity imitating Vance Norris is faking a heart attack. Vance Norris was replaced by the alien a long time ago.
He definitely isn't faking. He winces from chest pains while he is in a room all by himself, just after he looks out the window and yells "Hey you guys! Come here!" The implication is, like Blair said, when the thing takes over someone it copies them perfectly and also copied Norris' bad heart. It also wouldn't make any sense for him to fake a heart attack at that moment because it caused him to reveal himself to everyone all at once and be killed.
It doesn't take over their bad traits, no need to do that, every single cell of the organism has its own sense of survival, a heart attack wouldn't threaten it. It did fake a heart attack, it's not human, it doesn't use a heart. MacReady was becoming a threat to its survival with the dynamite - the thing wanted to create chaos, and in that way kill them all and eliminate the threat. It lured people close, like the doctor, so he could attack. Besides, it had already copied itself, it was also Palmer.
The chest pains started before Macready came into the building. He definitely wasn't faking a heart attack, he was actually having one. The creature makes a perfect copy of the organism it takes over and because Norris had a bad heart, it also had a bad heart. The creature only reveals itself when it's alone or it has to defend itself. Because the doctor was hurting it with the defibrillator, it was forced to reveal itself.
So you are saying that if the creature had a heart attack alone in a room it would actually die? Why would an actual heart attack threaten a thing that is made up of individual cells that have their own survival instincts? This fact was only revealed after the incident. No, the heart attack wasn't real, it isn't human.
No, I'm not saying the creature would or even could die of a heart attack. I'm saying that the heart attack wasn't faked because the creature made a perfect copy of Norris, including his bad heart. This is all explained after the dog-thing is examined. It has internal organs that look and work just like the creatures it copies. It wouldn't need to fake a heart attack to get people to come closer to it anyway. It can just walk up to anybody it wants to attack. For the entire movie, the creature lies in wait, attacking one person at a time unless it absolutely has no other choice but to defend itself.
I know it's the official explanation given, but I just don't buy it the creature would fail its hidden state so utterly by going into cardiac arrest and drawing attention to itself like that even though every single cell has it own survival instincts. I still say it was the threat of the dynamite, to create confusion. They do think individually or else the dynamite would have worked in it's favor even. It just panicked and did it on purpose.
I think what the movie is saying is that even though each individual cell wants to protect itself, it's still beholden to what particular type of cell it is. So if it's a copy of an eye cell of someone who has bad eyesight, the thing will still have bad eyesight. It didn't know anything about the dynamite when it started having chest pains, that was before Macready even came in.
9th May 2007
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Corrected entry: There's a shot of a jet crashed in the mud on the shore of the Nung River in a classic scene as the PBR sails underneath it. This makes for a great shot and may be the way WWII airplanes crashed, but it's not the way B52's crash. At the rates of speed and high altitudes they fly a jet aiming down at the ground like that would be in a million pieces and not sticking up in the mud. Even if the tail section were blown off it wouldn't crash this way and that's why there are absolutely no pictures of a Viet Nam combat era B52's tail section that has crashed in this way. (01:54:35)
Correction: The crash site wreckage you see is entirely typical of a low-level event such as an attempted emergency landing. The tail of an airliner or heavy bomber is often the only piece of piece of wreckage left after such an incident.
Correction: Just FYI, the first loss of a B-52 was 11-22-72 during Operation Linebacker II. The movie, most likely, takes place about August/September 1969.
Making this an entirely different type of error. The correction is right in terms of the state and disposition of the wreckage, but the fact that the wreckage shouldn't even be there in the first place doesn't invalidate that. Maybe you should post it as a factual error?
In 22 November 1972 it was the first shot down, not lost. First B-52 lost in the Vietnam war was June 18 1965, from colliding with another B-52. In total 11 B-52's were lost from accidents, the crashed one we see in the movie could be one of those.
First crash was a collision in June 1965. First one shot down was in Linebacker 2.
Not entirely true: A B52 was lost taking off from Andersen Guam going to Vietnam in 1969. The wing broke off on take off. Structural failure. Wreckage went in the water. Deep water.
28th Feb 2019
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Other mistake: While Harry and his classmates are on their way up to Gryffindor Tower right after the Sorting, Neville reacts with astonishment to a portrait moving. However, we learn in later films that Neville was raised in a magical household (by his grandmother), so he should have been completely accustomed to seeing pictures move. (00:46:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not every magic household has moving pictures in the house.
No, but being raised in the magical world he will have come across moving portraits. A good example (tho not explained until book 5) is at St Mungo's. He visits his parents regularly. The hospital has portraits there that would move. Thus seeing the one move at Hogwarts shouldn't have startled him.
I am now doubting it's Neville who is saying it. Can't be sure it's his voice. It can also be he is mentioning they are portraits, not photographs that are moving. Maybe moving paintings are rarer.
21st Feb 2019
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: I don't quite understand how Harry beat that monster book?
Answer: If you mean how he got it back under control, he lured it out from under his bed and then stepped on it. He was then able to put the binding back on. The book stops moving if the binding is around it.
No I meant how did he lure it out. I don't get how that works.
The book isn't a very smart creature. No reason for attacking is given so it probably attacks anything that is in front of it, too close maybe, or anything that moves. Like a shoe.
10th Aug 2008
The Mummy (1999)
Corrected entry: There was no solar eclipse visible anywhere near the Middle East in 1923.
Correction: The eclipse was caused because Imhotep was regenerating. An event that happens in a fantasy, as a result of a fictional character's actions, cannot be considered a factual error.
Correction: "Magically" creating a solar eclipse would mean altering the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun. The earthquakes would be beyond imagination and the resulting tsunamis and devastating climate changes would wipe out the few survivors. Some things are beyond magic. This is one of them.
But using magic he could "easily" (at least judging by his powers in this film) cast a shadow over the sun - it doesn't have to be the moon. Especially given that the sun stays dark for a while, whereas natural eclipses are over quite quickly.
Actually creating a solar eclipse would require moving the moon, not the Earth. It's not "beyond magic", magic is magic.
Correction: The ancient Egyptians worshipped the Sun as their ultimate god, Ra. Given that their "magic" seemed to function remarkably well (well enough to resurrect desiccated mummies after 3000 years, anyway), there's a slight chance that the ancient Egyptians were slightly more in touch with the magic of celestial mechanics than we are today with our dogmatic Science. I mean, if it happened that they were correct about the Sun being a God, then perhaps they were knowledgeable in summoning the Sun's cooperation in their magical endeavors.
6th Feb 2019
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Question: Aunt May subtly reveals, or at least implies, she knows Peter is Spider-Man when she's moving. Does she know in the comics? Because I remember in the comics she does not seem to like Spider-Man at all?
Answer: In the main Marvel continuity Aunt May does eventually find out that Peter is Spider-Man. Her memory is wiped of this knowledge later on.
Answer: In Amazing Spider-Man Vol 2. Number 35 Aunt May permanently finds out about Peter's secret identity and knows from then on.
That gets changed later on. Not sure which issue but it's after Civil War, she has her mind wiped after Peter gives her radioactive blood to save her life. I'm not entirely sure if that too is eventually changed but from what I remember Aunt May hasn't known his identity since Civil War.
Yeah it does switch around a lot. Dr. Strange made it so nobody will find out unless he wants them to. I suppose Aunt May doesn't know anymore then.
Keeping up with comic book continuity is an absolute nightmare.
I couldn't agree more. I've always wished for some kind of easy, interactive overview of what I was reading. I've actually given up on comics because of the hellish chronology. Well, except Judge Dredd which is pretty straight forward.
14th Jun 2007
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Question: Did Davey Jones corrupt his purpose? Is that why he turned out the way he did? His purpose was to ferry souls to the next world, was he not properly doing that?
Answer: Pretty much, yes. He carried out his duties faithfully for the first ten years, then returned to shore, to find Calypso missing. After that, he refused to continue, leading to his current state.
Answer: Like all pirates, he double crossed her. He seduced and captured her in human form, by controlling her he could control the seas. She in turn double crossed him cursing him to the Flying Dutchman.
That's not what happened at all.
It was the Brethern Court that did that I believe.
1st Feb 2019
Back to the Future (1985)
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.
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.
23rd Jul 2018
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Question: When Harry is packing his trunk at the end and Dumbledore is talking to him about setting the curtains on fire, does anyone know what is written on the inside of the lid of Harry's trunk?
Answer: It's hard to say what was written on the inside of the trunk. Sometimes they write the company that made the trunk so it might have had the manufacturer's name inside of it and maybe even the year that it was made as well. It seems like everyone at the school has very similar trunks so it may have his name written inside of it so as not to confuse it with anyone else's.
Answer: It looks like information for Harry's trunk in case it was ever found by someone. Probably had his phone number and address inside of it.
You wouldn't put that information on the inside.
You would if you didn't want to display your personal information everywhere but also expected that if your trunk was lost, the finder would open it to see whose it was. Yes it is more practical to have an ID tag or similar in modern luggage but the Harry Potter stories are deliberately written as quaint and old fashioned.
You don't open luggage you find. Name of the owner is always on the outside.
Sure you would. Presumably, it's very difficult to lose a trunk that big, given the modes of transport that Harry uses. Info on the inside would be a last resort.
26th Oct 2018
Alien (1979)
Question: Why would the company need a biological weapon and how would they use the alien as such?
Answer: The company is huge and diverse. Presumably it has a weapons division. An alien creature might give their researchers something to investigate that was unknown to rival businesses.
Answer: The company is in the business of colonizing planets.Now if a rival company were doing the same thing the company could plant an alien on the planet to wreak havoc and make it inhospitable, therefore making their own planets more desirable and ultimately more profitable.A ruthless tactic but the company is ruthless.
I like this answer the best.
Thanks Lionhead.
Answer: The nefarious "militarization" of newly-discovered properties (both earthly and otherworldly) is a common and predictable sci-fi and space-fantasy subplot that is so overused that it has become cliché. Usually, the specific military application is never actually revealed. It's really recycled social commentary, implying that humanity is so materialistic and ruthless that WE are the real "monsters," with no regard for Life (human or otherwise) in the natural world. This creates a dual threat within the movie, with the hero and/or heroine providing the only moral compass between a sensational alien confrontation and an even more terrifying human menace.
1st May 2007
General questions
Bear with me, it's been about 8 years since I've seen this movie. I remember something about cyborg teddy bear toys, like plushies, and there was some sort of plot where they were turning evil, not sure if they were lethal or not. But their eyes would turn red and stuff. (Sorry it's not more descriptive; can't think of anything else.) Do you know what the title of the movie is?
Answer: It is an episode from Honey I Shrunk the Kids The TV series. The episode is called Ho eat the Bear is Bad News. I remember this episode back when the show was on TV and one of the stuffed bears became infected with a computer virus and it passed it on to all of the other bears.
Answer: It's possible that it's Gremlins [1984]. Gremlins were little bear-looking creatures that would turn evil when fed after midnight. Water made them multiply.
It can't be gremlins because the Mogwai weren't cyborgs or even looked like a bear and it was only the gremlins that had red eyes.
Answer: Another possible answer is the 1995 horror film "Screamers." One of the titular robots is a red-eyed teddy bear.
No, the screamer is a little boy holding a teddy bear.
The teddy bear at the end revealed that it was a screamer as well, the missing model the humans never discovered.
No, Jessica is the screamer model they missed. The teddy bear and little boy are one screamer model together.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: Thor lied to Loki about the escape plan.
What part?
How they were going to leave the spaceship.
lionhead
About not escaping in the Dark Elves' ship, and that Fandral was there with another ship. Lying by omission.
Friso94