Plot hole: If Old Biff changed his past and went back to 2015, he goes back to HIS future, not the bad future, but Doc later tells Marty that if he were to go to the future to stop Biff from taking the almanac, he'd go to the bad future, so Old Biff technically shouldn't have been able to return to "his" future at all.
lionhead
27th Aug 2001
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
18th Aug 2018
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Other mistake: As the cop is walking towards the coffee machine, he steps on the T-1000 (disguised as the floor). The cop proceeds to the coffee machine and buys a coffee while the T-1000 turns into the cop. The T-1000 only touches his shoe, so shouldn't be able to copy his appearance. (00:51:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The impression is given that the cop walking over the T-1000 gives the T-1000 the ability to copy him. But in truth we don't actually see when the T-1000 came with the sample of the cop to be able to copy him, maybe he had already collected his DNA beforehand. Far-fetched example is that humans shed skin and hair all the time, if that falls onto the T-1000 that could be enough.
Sorry but I disagree with this correction. If we are going down this road of "but maybe..." then it opens up a whole can of worms for what is a mistake and what isn't. In an explosion, a vase still on a shelf might have been glued but its unlikely. Where does it end? I think the original entry is for mistake is correct based on A - if the t1000 already had his DNA then why disguise himself as the floor? He'd have just killed him when he first got to the hospital and B - Unless we actually see or hear any evidence that the T-1000 would actually behave in this manner then as far as we the audience can believe, it doesn't happen.
It's about plausibility. It's to see if the writers and director actually made a mistake or gave it to our imagination.
Another possibility: people do occasionally touch the sole of their shoes when taking them on and off (or if they're polishing them, or trying to clean something off them). That would leave at least a few skin cells that the T-1000 could thus use as a sample.
28th Jul 2018
Shrek 2 (2004)
Question: During "I Need A Hero" when Puss begins fighting the guards a Spanish song briefly plays, what is the name of the song? I know I've heard it somewhere else before.
Answer: It's an instrumental version of "Holding Out for a Hero", but because it's being played as a tango, it has a Spanish flair to it.
Answer: You're probably referring to "Livin' La Vida Loca", which was the first major hit single for Ricky Martin in 1998; in this film it's performed by Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas in character as Donkey and Puss In Boots, respectively.
I don't think the person who asked this question is referring to Living La Vida Loca. I think the song being referred to is the scene where the Fairy Godmother is singing I Need A Hero whilst Shrek, Donkey and Puss are breaking into the castle, and Puss stops on the way to fight the guards. After Puss gives his kitten eyes and says "En guard", he jumps up, taking his sword out to fight the guards, and heroic Spanish music briefly begins to play in the background. (Watch the video of this scene on YouTube https://youtu.be/WI0mSEzttx8 at the 3:55 mark for confirmation). I think it is that small piece of music that plays that is being referred to in the question, not Living La Vida Loca.
I think it's just an original part of the song to be honest, something Spanish added into it but originally composed for the song.
6th Aug 2018
The Jackal (1997)
Question: At the very end, Preston tells Declan "Thank you for everything." To which Declan responds "Oh, thank you, Da." The subtitles even say that he says Da and capitalize the D in it. Why exactly did he say "da"? is that an Irish thing? I don't think he was trying to call him Dad right? and Da is Russian for Yes. And where it being the Russian yes kinda makes sense in that contexts... it does't really. So why did he say "Da" after the thank you? (01:58:35)
Answer: He does say Da - it's an Irish way of saying Dad.
So the English word "Dad" but then the last D swallowed in the Irish accent. I hear him say dad, the last D quiet but not silent.
Answer: Are we sure he wasn't talking about a DA as in Deputy Assistant as a forseen promotion? As we know he is a Special Agent in the movie, but after stating he is quite the hero for saving the First Lady's life perhaps a promotion is also coming.
But that's always pronounced as the initials DA.
28th Oct 2017
It (2017)
Question: When Pennywise is eating Stan's face, why is it he never killed him? Stan was scared enough to be eaten and we saw Pennywise bite Georgie's arm off easily enough, so what took him so long with Stan?
Answer: I read the books and have seen both movies. The only thing I can think is that when Pennywise as the Crooked Lady was biting Stan's face he was exposing him to the Dead-lights. In the book I believe this happens and Bill jumps in front and does the whole ritual of Chud thing. This would also set up in IT chapter 2 why Stan is so scared of Pennywise forever after and if you have not read the book, I won't spoil it, but causes Stan to exit stage left early in act two, if you get my meaning. Hope this helps.
That's true, they show it that way for Part 2, to have it be different for Stan since he got closer than anyone, like they did in the 90's movie. But that wasn't the question. Also, Pennywise shows everyone he kills his deadlights doesn't he? I haven't read the book btw. I don't know how Pennywise drawing power from their fear and Stan being the only one still afraid affected him in the book.
Answer: Its possible It was already weakened by the others not being afraid and Stan was his only source for power.
Answer: No, IT doesn't show every kid who got eaten by him the dead lights. Georgie never sees them and Beverly was caught in the dead lights, but she lived so even if someone got caught by them it doesn't mean they are dead.
6th Aug 2018
Hannibal (2001)
Question: When the pickpocketer, on the request of Pazzi, had gotten Lecter's fingerprint he was also stabbed. He collapses and Pazzi takes a look at the wound which he was covering with his hand. It appears that Pazzi intentionally prevented him from covering the wound so he would bleed out faster. Why?
Answer: Lecter stabs the pickpocket in the abdomen and gives the knife a quick twist, expertly severing the aorta, which was a fatal wound. Nothing could prevent the pickpocket's death, as he only had moments to live. Pazzi realises this when he inspects the wound. There was nothing Pazzi could do, either way.
I don't think Hannibal severed his aorta. The wound was in the groin where the femoral artery runs relatively close to the surface. You will still bleed to death from this artery in around 1 min.
No, the aorta runs from the heart down through the thoracic cavity and the abdominal cavity before it branches into the femoral arteries at the pelvis. Lecter plainly stabbed the pickpocket deep in the abdomen, in the area of his navel, and twisted the knife to sever the aorta. The pickpocket would only have moments to live (or minutes, at most). When Pazzi inspects the wound, the pickpocket's hands are covering his abdomen, which is bleeding profusely.
Being a seasoned police officer, he knew this wound was fatal. We don't know exactly where the injury occurred, but most likely the upper femoral artery or the lower descending aortic artery. Sadly, as an E.R. nurse, I have seen many of these and death occurs rapidly and most don't even make it to the E.R.
Answer: I, myself, wondered this, too. I think that it's because the guy was a criminal and Pazzi didn't want himself to be linked to the pick pocket by either the cops or Hannibal, himself. Remember Pazzi was up to no good - he wanted the reward and so, would stop at nothing to get the money, even if it meant letting another person die. The pick pocket was a loose end that Pazzi had to tie up. The pick pocket's death would also prevent Pazzi from being blackmailed later on down the line.
Exactly, he didn't want any witnesses. It was convenient for Pazzi to have the pickpocket bleed out.
Answer: After their run-in, the pickpocket says, "he tried to hit me in the balls, but he missed." Hannibal must've went for the femoral artery. I thought maybe, the way Gnocco was bleeding, the direction the blood was gushing, Hannibal had separated Gnocco from his "manhood."
9th Jul 2018
Ready Player One (2018)
Plot hole: During the final battle, we see all the other players charging over the hill and running into battle. We later see that these are just players standing on the streets wearing VR visors. But unlike our hero who is dangling on wires (and used a treadmill earlier on)...nobody on the streets is using any such thing. Which means when they are charging or running, they would all be crashing into walls or any obstacles that get in their way. Certainly nothing like the film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: How much you have to move in the real world depends on how much and what kind of haptic gear you're wearing. If you have a boot suit and an omnidirectional treadmill, for example, you do all your own walking, running, and jumping, because you have the space to do it and the haptics to respond to your movements. People with minimal gear-like those we see on the streets-might have only a visor and gloves, say, and they have to do all their "running", "fighting" etc. with signals from their hands. It's like if you don't have a joystick, you have to use the arrows on the keyboard.
I disagree with this. At one point during the big fight you see a group of players as Spartans running along the street, with visors on. They definitely would have run into a wall or other person at some point. I'm sure they were not the only ones. I'm sure it's possible to use something for movement control besides actual physical movements but that scene shows not everybody is using it and there should be a lot of accidents with people running into things and each other. At the start of the movie you see a mom climb upon her couch to imitate climbing up a rock in the game, physically imitating the movement. The lack of showing this disability for players on the streets might not be so big as to be a plot hole, but definitely a factual error.
Here's a clip of the Spartans https://youtu.be/D_eZxSYRhco?t=1m36s that shows they are definitely moving in exactly the same way in the Oasis as they are in real life, so even though yes it would make perfect sense for there to be different control schemes depending on the level of technology a person has, the film appears to show that it's a one-to-one translation of movement regardless of practicality or safety.
I don't think it's an issue. Note that several times in the movie people are also shown to be playing the game while just sitting down at a table. Case in point, the guy that dies on Planet Doom and then immediately jumps up from his work desk and tries to run to the window to jump out. He was sitting down but still playing in the PVP on planet doom. Same is true for right as Wade is telling that when you die all your money and everything you work for is gone. The scene shows Sho stabbing a person's avatar on Planet Doom that then shows the person who was playing that character falling out of a chair he was sitting in. With another person sitting across from him also in a chair.
I think in the end we can all agree its a mistake in the movie but not as big as a plot hole. Some people running, some people sitting down whilst playing, could be a matter of taste, but the Spartans running across the street with a visor on is definitely not logical.
The players have the ability to see the real world because the glasses of most people are transparent, Art3mis even looks at Sorrento approaching in IOI, which Wade even asks why she is looking in that direction if there is nothing there, so the players would not hit the wall when running.
8th Mar 2017
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Question: Could Anna see ghosts? Why was she shivering in the closet and then ran out of it in fear? Also in the end why was she shivering and answering Malcolm? Was she ignoring him all the time?
Chosen answer: No, she can't see ghosts...no one but Cole can. But it is established that everyone can feel the "chilling" effect of the ghosts, and feel an inexplicable coldness in their presence. Naturally, this freaks them out, so it's natural Anna (and everyone else) would run from it. At the end, she wasn't answering Malcolm, just as throughout the film what appears to be her ignoring him is simply her not being aware of his presence. She's merely talking in her sleep, and Malcolm, as he does every other time, mistakes this for a direct interaction...until he realises the truth.
Actually I do believe she was answering him. Cole told him to go talk to her while she slept. After finding out ghosts come to him for help, this is Cole helping Malcolm. It's possible Cole knew it is possible for ghosts to communicate with other people this way.
Actually I believe the cellar is just cold in the first scene. Instead, I think she is spooked and thinks something is odd since Vincent was actually in the cellar hiding when she was down there. At some point afterwards he snuck up to the bathroom before being confronted by Malcolm. Any other interaction between Anna and the cold is likely the sensation of being near a ghost though.
Animals could sense them too, or at least the ones in paranormal activity can.
Paranormal Activity has nothing to do with this movie.
30th Jul 2018
Men in Black (1997)
Corrected entry: The Arquillians threaten to destroy the Earth if they cannot retrieve the Galaxy. But where is Griffin's Arc Net Shield (MIB 3) which protects earth from alien invasions?
Correction: That arc shield was meant specifically for the Boglodites, not all alien species. Besides, the Arquillians aren't invading Earth, they just blow it up from orbit.
Correction: Griffin's Arc Net Shield did not exist in the first movie, nor in the second, because the Arc Net Shield was a plot device of the third movie only. There is little background continuity between the three films, so we cannot assume they share the same plot devices, especially in retrospect. One constant, however, was mentioned by Agent K in the first film: "There's always an alien battle cruiser, or a Corellian death ray, or an intergalactic plague intended to wipe out life on this miserable little planet. The only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they do not know about it!" In this way, director Barry Sonnenfeld set up a sequel universe in which there could be any number of independent threats against the Earth that the MIB simply addressed one at a time without overlapping plots. Multiple threats and appropriate defenses were seldom discussed but were just routine for the MIB.
There is continuity between the 3 films. Frank the Pug as a picture on J's wall. J complaining about false promises K made when he recruited him. The alien battle cruiser you mentioned. Why shouldn't there be no continuity? Who said MiB movies are standalone episodes?
I agree there is continuity. The supposed constant helps keep things small and reset them almost completely (same goes for the neuralizer), but that doesn't mean there is no continuity. Its also a fact J doesn't know a tenth of what K knows, including the existence of the arc shield.
My comment was "little or no background continuity," such that there are sequential references to Frank the Pug, et cetera. But MIB3 is its own story, and the first two films didn't anticipate or acknowledge the Arc Net Shield. That was purely an MIB3 plot device.
But it fits in the first 2 MIB movies just fine, so its irrelevant.
Well, by that reasoning, you could just as easily say that the first MIB film and MIB2 ceased to exist throughout most of the third film. Early in MIB3, Agent K was killed in Florida in 1969, he never launched the Arc Net Shield (so why didn't the Boglodites invade the Earth), Agent K never met J again in New York City years later, J never became an MIB Agent, et cetera, et cetera. Yet the present hardly changes at all after Agent K is killed in 1969. As long as we're "fitting" things together in retrospect, there are a LOT contradictions and continuity problems with the whole trilogy. Which is why I still think the trilogy is supposed to be a series of stand-alone films with no over-arcing continuity.
Nothing wrong with the timeline in that aspect. The Boglodites didn't invade earth until the present day, just hours after Boris escaped and killed K, that was the scheduled invasion, which would have failed had the shield been there (and killed off the boglodites). Without K someone else obviously recruited J, seeing his potential just as K did, as you might recall J was just an agent in the alternate present day and not seen as a stranger. Any other things that might have gone different we simply don't see in the little time we spend in the altered present day (before J goes back).
But Agent K did not just pick J "for his potential; according to MIB3, Agent K took the very young J under his wing, giving him a specific direction in life (probably spying on J regularly as he grew up, and intending to recruit J to the Men in Black. Assuming that J was always going to be an MIB agent (without K's intervention) is a pretty huge assumption. And then, of course, there's the matter of J being the only one who remembered K in the present. How did that work?
Again, even though K wasn't there to take J under his wing some other agent could have picked up on J's capabilities, its not that huge an assumption. J remembers K in the present because, according to Jeffrey, he was there, in the past his young self was present when the time change occurred and therefor he retains his original self (which is just a plot contrivance, but whatever, its a time travel movie).
13th Jul 2017
Alien: Covenant (2017)
Corrected entry: The computer on board the ship mistakes David for Walter. This makes no sense as while a human being could be fooled by his appearance or his voice, a computer with detailed sensors and possessing the exact details of David's composition would not be fooled simply because the two "look" and "sound" alike. In fact, Walter, being a newer and more advanced model, should be composed of different chemicals and materials than the earlier manufactured David making it even less likely that the ship's computer would have mistaken the two.
Correction: Makes way too many assumptions about the manufacturing of either one.
Furthermore, we do not know exactly how the ship is supposed to be identifying the androids in the first place.
I feel like I already corrected a similar mistake. David is less advanced, but cleverer than Walter. The correction is right in saying there are too many assumption being made. Who knows what David did to be more like Walter, that might even be easy for a highly advanced android. Who knows how advanced and sophisticated the computer sensors are to detect an imposter android. I didn't think the computer or anything much is made with many defenses against sabotage. Its a peaceful universe. Also don't really remember but the first time David enters the ship couldn't he already have modified the computer? Hacked it?
Well, we do know that Walter is constructed much differently that David. David uses what he thinks is an android-lethal move on Walter, and David thinks he has killed Walter. Moments later, David is astonished to see Walter not only alive but ready to do battle again. At this point, Walter even says, "There have been a few upgrades since your day." Which means that Walter is different in ways that even David didn't imagine. So, the original post is correct: Even a cursory security scan of David would have instantly revealed that he wasn't Walter.
3rd Apr 2004
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Question: If Malcolm was dead, how did he know all about Cole, and that he needed help? Where did he get all the info?
Answer: It's never explained in the film, but the implication seems to be that he was just sort-of compelled to help Cole. Given the film portrays the dead as only "seeing what they want to see" and trying to resolve unfinished business from life, it's entirely possible that Malcolm falsely believes he was assigned to Cole's case, even though he wasn't. It's just his way of trying to move on.
I'd like to add that despite the ghosts not knowing they are dead, they do know they can interact with Cole and others who can see them, they are even drawn to them, for help. This happened with Malcolm too and him being child psychiatrist connected with his ability to communicate with Cole, not asking Cole for help but helping Cole help himself. The info he has is probably a collection of his previous encounters with him, perhaps even being there at past psychiatrists. Its also possible he was his next patient, before he got shot. The dossier could have already been at his house and he remembers it.
Answer: In his notes, it says referred September 1998, so I am guessing he had been referred to Willis, but they never met, but when he suddenly finds himself sitting outside his house, drawn by whatever forces do such, he would naturally assume he was there to meet with his new referral, or perhaps he imagined it, one part of his mind telling him he was there to meet his patient, and one part conjuring up a note pad that would have the notes of the referral.
Answer: The dead need to finish things on Earth before they can move on. In Malcolm's case, he needs to help Cole - making up for his failure to help Vincent Grey. In order to do this, he needs the relevant information, so it is supplied to him by whatever agency controls these things. As the dead are unaware of their condition, Malcolm receives the information as if it were another case file for him to work on.
27th Aug 2001
The Terminator (1984)
Corrected entry: After the car chase in which Kyle and Sarah are being chased by Arnold, Arnold's stolen cop car crashes into the parking lot wall. When the trailing police haul Sarah and Kyle away, Arnold is missing from the car he's just crashed. Kyle has clearly stated that the Terminator will absolutely not stop until Sarah is dead. Why would he flee the scene from a few cops - given his resilience - when he could have kept after Sarah and killed her right there? Was he "afraid" of doing it in front of the police? Was he concerned about getting away?
Correction: The terminator was injured in the crash as we see later when he repairs his arm and eye. He also has no way of knowing that the police don't have weapons that could damage him (he asks for a plasma rifle at the gun shop, implying he knows little of 1980s weapons).
Yet the Terminator apparently does possess a 1980s database, allowing him to instantly operate a variety of 1980s automobiles (including tractor-trailers), use telephone directories and telephones, and even select appropriate curse words of the day. He also, obviously, possesses a database of current 1980s road atlases (allowing him to track Sarah and Kyle by physical address). It would be inconceivable to equip the Terminator with all of this 1980s data and yet not equip him with full knowledge of available 1980s weaponry, given the purpose of his mission. Thus, the "plasma rifle" request at the gun shop was either a glitch in his programming or it was a plot-hole in the movie. Just as his fleeing the scene of the car wreck was a plot-hole. The Terminator had absolutely no fear of 1980s law enforcement, as is made apparent when he destroys police headquarters single-handedly.
Correction: I disagree with why this is in the corrections as this assessment as earlier in the film, Sarah asks Kyle "Can you stop him?" And Reese replies "with these weapons, I'm not sure." So, obviously, the weapons that are carried around couldn't have stopped the terminator. Plus the terminator wasn't worried about the weapons being used as we see later on it goes into the police station to kill Sarah Connor, so this proves it wouldn't have been worried about the weapons being used. Also, Kyle has said to Sarah, the terminator will stop at nothing to kill her, so why stop here?
I think the weaponry concern was less of an issue than him being injured. With a damaged arm and eye and facing reinforcements he opted to withdraw and repair himself before trying again. Not to mention that Reese doesn't say: "With these weapons, I'm not sure." He specifically says, with a doubtful tone of voice: "With these weapons, I don't know."
Exactly. Not stopping for anything doesn't mean he isn't tactical.
14th Dec 2004
The Incredibles (2004)
Question: Why is Violet's hair black when her parents have brown and blond hair? None of them obviously dyed their hair, Dash and Jack Jack have blond and brown hair respectively.
Answer: Violet could dye her hair; I don't think it ever said she didn't. Come to think of it, either one or both of the parents could conceivably dye their hair, too.
Answer: My sister has natural blond hair, while the rest of us have dark brown hair.
Answer: Would Violet be able to turn her hair invisible if it's dyed?
That would depend on the nature of her ability. If she is generating a skin-tight field of invisibility around herself (including her hair), then yes, that would effectively cause her hair dye to become invisible. If she is somehow only changing her own molecules to be invisible, then no. However, if this were the case, her hair wouldn't become invisible either, since it's dead material.
I'm in love with this question. This would mean that one of the parents has to dye his/her hair, Helen probably. Or, Helen cheated on Bob (probably with Gazerbeam).
My guess is that Violet's powers work like those of the Invisible Girl/Woman of the Fantastic Four by bending light in her immediate vicinity in such a manner that she appears invisible to the naked eye; this would explain why her clothing becomes invisible as well despite not being part of her body. If this is the case, then there's no reason her hair wouldn't turn invisible as well, dyed or otherwise.
Answer: Judging by the slight blue tint of Violet's hair, it's probable that she dyed it.
14th Jul 2018
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
Corrected entry: There is no way that the SS Venture could plow into the dock as depicted. Easily pulling a 30-foot draft, the Venture would have grounded out a mile away from the shoreline, unless the ocean was 30 feet deep right off the beach.
Correction: Of course it wouldn't have grounded, it was meant to dock at the pier. They had everything ready at the shore for unloading the ship once it was docked. The bay and dock is thus deeper than 30 feet.
Which does not negate the fact that a super-freighter-sized vessel cannot dock at a beach pier. The ocean floor would have to be at least 40 feet deep right off the beach.
It's not a super-freighter sized vessel, its a medium sized cargo ship, probably around 250 or 300 meters long with a draft of 30 feet at max, if it was full. The scene is shot on a fictional location outside of San Diego on a small dock, you have no idea how deep it is there. I don't see any beaches either so I don't know where you get the idea that its a beach pier.
The scene is post-production CGI, it wasn't shot at any location.
Have you ever seen a pier constructed elsewhere than on a shallow beach? No. Piers are not constructed in deep water.
A pier can be build at any type of location including a full fledged constructed harbor where cruise-ships or even aircraft carriers can dock at them, like in San Diego itself like the USS Midway Museum (called the navy pier). Piers can be constructed in very deep water, have to be in order for big ships to moor at them.
A dock is different from a pier, in case you didn't know. The construction in this movie is a wooden pier, not a dock. There is no way that a cargo ship (or a super freighter in this case) could pull up to a pier.
Doesn't matter what you call it, it's a place ships moor at. It's a fictional location and the fact it's wooden is totally irrelevant. If this ship is supposed to moor at it, then the water is deep enough for it to get there. Even if it had a 60 foot draft. Ingen built the dock, the pier, the harbor, everything, for loading and unloading supplies onto big ships.
Umm, yeah, it makes a difference what you call it. A dock is where ships moor (deep water). A pier is where people fish (shallow water). The SS Venture crashes into a wooden pier.
In American English the word is synonymous to dock. Doesn't matter, like I said, the place is meant to have a ship moored at it, it's not a fishing pier.
16th Mar 2015
The Truman Show (1998)
Question: How does Christof talk to the actors? They don't look like they have earpieces, and if they do, why didn't that make Truman suspicious earlier?
Answer: They do have earpieces, just minuscule ones that can't be seen unless you are looking directly into a persons ear. As shown in the scene with Marlon on the beach, he is being fed his lines by such an earpiece. They are also present when Truman is in his car and he picks up the signal they are using to show where he is at the given time. Also, even though you can hear what someone is saying, you can't talk back to them which is why Meryl and Marlon had to talk to a camera when requesting help/confirming Truman wasn't there.
Yep, that's it. Also, the earpieces might not even be that small but Truman isn't looking for them and thus doesn't see them.
Chosen answer: It appears that Christof and the control team in the moon did not, in fact, have contact with the actors very often. It is more likely he had contact with people on the ground who could make things happen per his instructions. But there were inconsistencies. For example, how could he create instantaneous traffic jams at a moment's notice, and set up a hazardous spill scene on the outskirts of town to prevent Truman from leaving Seahaven, but he couldn't get anyone to interrupt or vary the cycle of movements by extras that Truman watched in his rear view mirror when he was trying to convince his wife something in their town was amiss - even when he was talking aloud, anticipating the next extra's move before it happened? Christof could arrange for a road race to happen by and to have people almost instantaneously hustle Truman's father onto a bus when he showed up in town as a homeless man, but it took quite some time to get Sylvia's father onto the beach to whisk her away to Fiji, even though Christof knew exactly where they were headed. And when Truman and Meryl were having their major argument in their kitchen, Christof could engineer Marlon to show up with a six pack of beer, but he couldn't communicate with Meryl to provide her advice on how to handle the situation, and she ended up screaming for help into a camera. I think Christof did place some sort of communication/listening device on some actors at critical times. We saw that in a couple of instances (e.g. When Marlon went into Truman's basement looking for an already disappeared Truman, Christof was feeding him direct instructions). But I don't think it was routinely done. And when it was, Christof's surely would have had the technical know-how to create a supremely inconspicuous piece of equipment.
8th Jul 2018
Grease (1978)
Question: At the drive-in, Kenickie confronts Rizzo about being pregnant, but she tells him not to worry because "it was someone else's mistake." What does she mean?
Answer: She says it to hurt him.
Absolutely, she said it, like she said a lot of things - out of malice. Kenickie is genuinely distressed, genuinely meant he would stick by her, even if the baby wasn't his.
Answer: Rizzo doesn't actually mean someone else got her pregnant. She is just letting Kenickie "off the hook," probably because she figures he wouldn't want to take responsibility, anyway, and she was probably going to have to handle this on her own. Kenickie is hurt by this, however, as we can tell by his expression when he replies, "thanks a lot, kid."
I always read it as an expression of relief when he says "Thanks a lot, kid".
It was not meant as an expression of off the hook. It was meant as in, "that's really a messed up thing to say!" He was hurt by her saying that he was someone else's mistake.
She didn't say he was someone else's mistake. I already said that in a different correction. She says "it was someone else's mistake." Meaning the baby isn't his.
Answer: The whole meaning behind it is that Rizzo really is pregnant with Kenickie's kid but Rizzo says it's someone else's: "someone else's problem," pretty much giving a chance for Kenickie to be off the hook as not being the father. But Kenickie obviously knows she is lying. And he's upset and says "thanks a lot kid" sarcastically.
Answer: Both Kenickie and Rizzo are upset and being sarcastic. The interpretations of his and her words are debatable, especially since there is no way of knowing if Rizzo did, in fact, sleep with someone else. However, there's no indication that Rizzo was with another boy/man, so it can be assumed Kenickie is the father and both know this is true. My interpretation was that Rizzo, by saying "it's someone else's mistake", was referring to herself - that she was stupid enough to even have sex with someone like Kenickie in the first place. (The second inferred meaning is that she will not hold him responsible because she knows he isn't interested in being a father/paying.) Kenickie's response, "thanks a lot, kid" was returning an insult - the "thanks a lot" part being sarcastic and "kid" meaning immature and not old enough to have even been given the chance or "be lucky enough" for him to (lower himself and) sleep with her, given all the other "better" girls - WOMEN - around from which to choose.
Answer: It's been a while, but I thought the quote was: Kenickie: I don't run away from my mistakes Rizzo: Don't worry, you're someone else's mistake. I would agree with others that she's essentially letting him off the hook in the storyline (everybody knows it's his), but this particular quote is basically just a joke implying HE was HIS parents' mistake...as a way to lighten the mood.
She didn't say "you're someone else's mistake." She says "it was somebody else's mistake."
7th Jun 2018
Highlander (1986)
Corrected entry: When the marine is driving around all four headlights are on, but when he pulls up in the darkened alley only two headlights are on.
Correction: He just switched to two headlights when he went into the alley. Could have done it at any time.
No need for him to drive down a well lit street with all the headlights on but when he turns into a darkened ally he turns two off, this is stupidly or a continuity mistake.
Why he does it is totally irrelevant. Its not a continuity mistake when the sequence of actions is consequential. He turns the headlights down, period.
13th Sep 2011
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
Corrected entry: Caesar the Chimpanzee spoke human words. However Great Apes' vocal chords make them unsuitable for speech as they are higher in their throats. Since the virus only affects the brain and doesn't physically change the location of the apes' vocal chords, it's impossible for Caesar to speak, no matter how smart he is.
Correction: Caesar spoke after he was exposed to the updated ALZ-113 drug. It is shown that this drug causes a physical side effect in humans when we see the exposed doctor sneezes blood, though no specifics were stated. Since this drug causes physical changes in humans, it is not unlikely that it could also cause a physical change in apes as well, allowing Caesar and other exposed apes to speak.
The exposed doctor has disease symptoms. That's not the same as changing the location of the vocal chords.
6th Jul 2018
Incredibles 2 (2018)
Corrected entry: The whole plot of the movie is premised on the fact that it has been 14 years since the last release with the movie "catching us up" on what has happened the last 14 years. The big problem is that none of the Incredibles have aged. "Dash" and Violet Parr (the kids) should be 20-something adults possibly with their own kids and Bob and Helen Parr (The parents) would be middle-aged grandparents.
Correction: "Incredibles 2" is not set 14 years later. It takes place 3 months after the first film. In fact, it's still 1962, the same year "The Incredibles" is set.
Yeah, pretty funny entry as I think odelphi is referring to the start of the first movie, with the interviews. Whilst this movie starts with showing exactly where the last movie ended.
18th Jul 2017
Preacher (2016)
Revealing mistake: The Amazing Ganesh gets sawed in half (for real) by a chainsaw but the blades separating the 2 halves and thus his body are already in place as seen when he pushes the two halves towards the audience. So the saw wasn't really cutting through anything. (00:11:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That is exactly how magicians perform the trick. Once inside the box the victim folds up into 1 of the 2 boxes and the blades inserted. Then cut and shown to the audience to show they have been cut in half.
Except the great Ganesh actually saws himself in half. He never learns the trick normally, he just actually saws himself in half and kills himself, then respawns. That's the idea of the scenes.
Suggested correction: The effects of the past being altered may not have happened immediately. It is possible that it took time for the timelines to adjust to the changes of events, meaning enough time would have passed to change 1985 when they return, but not enough time could have passed to change 2015. By the time Doc says if they went back to 2015 they would be going to an alternate future, some time has passed, so the effects of the past being altered and taking ahold in 2015 and altering it are more likely to have occurred by then.
Casual Person
Here is what you say: "perhaps it took time for the time lines to adjust." What kind of time would timelines take? Time is time, it doesn't take time to change the timeline. That doesn't make any sense. Some people claim it was the DeLorean itself that came back to its own original timeline and only then reset itself in the new one, but then the new timelines being erased later on wouldn't have happened either. So its a genuine plot hole.
lionhead
It's established in the first film that it takes time for the changes to take effect. Marty and his siblings slowly disappear from the photo, rather than instantly. Although the scene in BTTF2 was deleted, it was filmed showing Biff dying and slowly fading away after his return to his present.
Yet they were restored instantly without any outside influence at the end of the movie. There are a lot of things wrong with this movie and the first one. Old Biff disappearing should mean that Marty and Doc should slowely disappear as well, even the DeLorean. But they didn't, that doesn't make any sense. The point is there is a plot hole, somewhere. To know where all you can do is look at it logically and then you automatically come up with Old Biff going back to the future but not the alternate future. If he did there wouldn't have been a movie, but that's the plot hole.
lionhead
The timeline didn't change until he made his first bet which was some years I think after receiving it. He immediately travelled forward after giving the act, meaning he will still jump forward to the original future.
The timelines would instantly change, and Old Biff couldn't possibly have returned to "normal" 2015. It's just a poorly-thought-out time travel plot hole (or a deliberate error to expedite the storyline).
Charles Austin Miller
Suggested correction: In context, Doc was saying that they couldn't return to 2015 to stop Biff from stealing the time machine, because Biff didn't steal the time machine in the alternate 2015, he only stole it in the original 2015. Marty and Doc didn't stay long enough in 2015 after Biff returned, and that's why they didn't see any differences. Also, though they were unaware of it, Biff was dead in the alternate 2015, so the disasters he caused might have reverted back after his death.