Corrected entry: In the battle with the Germanians, we see a Roman soldier killing a fallen opponent with the tip of his spear. This would not happen in reality. The spear is a javelin, or 'pilum', used for throwing. If the soldier still had his pilum, he would have used the reverse end of it, the 'shoe', for finishing off his foe. The shoe was a sharp metal point used to stick the spear into the ground. (00:09:35)
lionhead
11th Aug 2004
Gladiator (2000)
22nd May 2008
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Corrected entry: There is a problem with the following scene: The Nazi plane crashes into the tunnel, slides past Harrison Ford and Sean Connery and explodes when exiting the tunnel. The problem is that the plane shouldn't explode since its wings (filled with gas) were torn off. It couldn't have been a bomb attached to the plane either, since, as it is seen only seconds afterwards, a bomb would leave a big crater in the street and make it impossible for the car to go on. Yet, Harrison Ford has no problems at all driving through what's left of the plane.
Correction: The engine and hosing that delivers the gas to it is attached to the fuselage.
Could someone elaborate on the proposed correction please?
The engine can still explode and there could hypothetically still be fuel in the hosing connected to the engine.
But there's not a LOT of fuel left there, when the tanks fell off half a minute earlier. It's not a terribly entertaining mistake, granted, because some movies really do need explosions. But it might be technically valid in a boring way.
6th May 2021
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Question: How did Quicksilver manage to get the arcade game, the table tennis and what looks like a sound system in the basement? They are very heavy and even with his speed would be impossible to move.
Answer: There could be a basement door, so he wouldn't need the stairs, and with a hand truck, even the heavier objects would be easy to move.
He's able to move several people out of the Mansion when it is destroyed, so perhaps his powers allow him to move things that big quickly. He can also push a cart or trolley at speed, remember.
Answer: He doesn't have to steal the actual heavy items, he can steal money and buy the heavy items and have them delivered. His mother is a single parent so it wouldn't be very difficult for him to arrange delivery of items while she is working. Mom also appears to be completely aware of Peter's crimes and doesn't really seem all that concerned.
And his mother wouldn't have found that suspicious? Or the movers? He's a teenager.
His mother seemingly already knows that he steals stuff. It's her house after all. She thinks the heroes are the police when they first show up to talk to him, and she visits him in the basement in the next film, and would have seen all the stuff he has down there. As for the movers, I used to work for a moving company, and not once did we ever ask a customer where they acquired something we were moving. They would be there to do a job.
That totally doesn't make any sense. The idea is that he stole these items. Would he call a moving company to steal an arcade game out of an arcade hall? How does he get the arcade game in the first place? Does he leave it on the curb of the arcade hall (or shop) so they can pick it up and drop it off at his house?
He most likely stole money and legit bought all those things. He likely helps his mother with the bills and stuff, so she doesn't ask him how he does it. Pietro is not known to be some master criminal with bad character, so he likely doesn't steal from ordinary people. The way he broke Magneto out of the prison, it seems he knows his way around a vault.
How he gets the arcade game is another question entirely. Maybe he stole it from a gas station or a restaurant that was near an apartment complex, but was still far from his home, and arranged to have it picked up at the apartment complex, so it would look like he lived there and was moving it to a new place. Alternatively, he could have had friends help him load it onto a truck.
22nd Jul 2010
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Question: Can someone please tell me why Stark brought strawberries when he visits Pepper in her office? He knows that she is allergic to them and we know that he likes/loves her, but it was a spiteful and mean thing to do. Not to mention insensitive. If he did that just to get the model, couldn't he had done it differently? The whole idea just doesn't make sense to me.
Answer: He wanted to do something nice for her, but since he is a pretty self-absorbed, shallow multi-billionaire, he forgot about her allergy. He remembered that there was SOMETHING about her and strawberries, but misremembered and thought it meant she really liked them. He makes a simple human mistake, not out of meanness or spite, but because he honestly does not remember.
Answer: I've only watched this movie once but I think he got the strawberries from the man on the side of the road, and he just didn't want them. The man did just place them on the seat of Tony's car.
He stopped on the side of the road to get the strawberries. The man didn't throw them into his car as he drove by.
19th Nov 2017
Justice League (2017)
Character mistake: At the start Wonder Woman stops a terrorist attack in London, and one of the terrorists tells her the bomb will flatten 4 blocks. This must be true as she is using her lasso of truth. But she just throws the bomb through the roof window and it explodes without damaging anything. A bomb with that blast radius would still damage nearby buildings, whether it detonated in the air or on the ground.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You are compelled to YOUR truth. He didn't build the bomb. He could have been wrong based on what he knew. Otherwise, why did the terrorists have to go through all that trouble to plant a bomb there if they could level 4 blocks just by planting it outside in the car.
Which is why it is labeled a character mistake, yes. You are right in your observation, but at the same time, the only truth the movie feeds us by exposition is that the bomb is supposed to have a certain power, and that is not true. Movies tend also to use this trope/trick a lot; the moment you throw a bomb at 'the last second', the explosion that was supposed to be uber-powerful is relatively harmless, even when the distance was not all that significant.
Depends on how high she threw the bomb. She can throw that thing high enough that it won't cause damage. Certainly if it's not as powerfull as the terrorist thought.
15th Oct 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Question: How are Captain America, Black Widow, and Black Panther talking to Proxima Midnight through the Wakandan cloaked shield? What's she looking at? Trees?
Answer: It's not a cloaking shield. It's a defensive barrier. There would be no need to have a cloaking shield within the city because anybody that's inside the city would seemingly already know that Wakanda is hidden.
The cloak is to hide the city. If Cap flew in and only saw trees...what is the Black Order looking at and talking to?
The cloaking shield is what hides the city from overhead view, so aircraft that fly over can't see that there's an advanced city hiding within what is believed to be a third-world country. The barrier around the palace is to prevent enemies from attacking. That's why the "space dogs" are being torn apart when they try to go through the shield. When it becomes apparent that they can get through the shield when they attempt to do so in large numbers, Black Panther orders a section of the shield to be opened in order to bottleneck the forces in so that they can't surround the palace and penetrate the shield from a side that's not as well guarded.
This wasn't an overhead view. They were flying low and in a straight line into trees that on the other side hid buildings that were the same height. They weren't looking down.
Irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is the Wakandans build that shield, and they can do anything they want with it. Perhaps the cloaking part is discarded to boost the shield's defensive capabilities.
That's an illogical answer: they can do what they want. Perhaps? Where is that in the movie? These are guesses not answers.
Are you saying they don't have full control over their own shield that they designed and can manipulate very specifically, as seen in the movie?
"Perhaps the cloaking part is discarded to boost the shield's defensive capabilities." - where is that in the movie? This website would not exist if every response was "they can do whatever they want".
It is when we are talking about future technology in advanced civilizations. This entry is also a question, not a mistake. There is a simple explanation for it, so that is the answer.
This is a theory not an explanation. An explanation would be backed up by facts from the movie.
There isn't an in-film "explanation", but that's a distinction without a difference. If in a movie we see someone in one place and then several scenes later we're shown them somewhere else, there isn't an "explanation" for how they've got there, but there might be plenty of perfectly reasonable theories about how - drove themselves, got a ride, took the bus, etc. This is a wholly fictional technology and the "facts from the movie" are that people can talk through it, just like they can choose to open specific narrow sections. So we take at face value that it's possible, because there's no in-film reason to assume it isn't possible.
31st May 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Corrected entry: Thanos should have noticed there were no stones in the Gauntlet before his final snap attempt. When he knocks Iron-Man off he pulls his hand back, and as he adjusts the glove, he looks at the back of it. He sees it fully in the wide and he can at least see the back of the thumb in the close-up. (02:29:50)
Correction: He simply didn't notice. Entirely plausible under the circumstances.
What about the fact that the power that surged through his body when he put the gauntlet on would have left his body abruptly? Fact is, he should've noticed.
I'm afraid you've missed the point of the scene (and Thanos' entire arc). He said the arrogant never suspect anything. That proved to be prophetic about himself. He believed he was inevitable and in that moment he was completely caught up in his sure victory. Thus, he was arrogant and did not suspect anything, including the idea that the stones wouldn't be in his gauntlet.
At that point Thanos doesn't even know what to expect from the gauntlet, because he never used it before, so he might think that the stones are there.
Not possible, when you're looking at it. That's the only reason he would look at the back of the glove.
That is not plausible. The glove glows. Missing one sure. Not every single stone. Especially when he looks directly at the back of it.
The glove does not glow.
Correction: He had already had the surge of power. Stark didn't remove the glove and had no intention to. His intention was to remove the stones in a tussle while pretending to try to remove the glove. Thanos himself gave him the idea when he removed the power stone to punch capt marvel.
26th Feb 2021
WandaVision (2021)
Breaking the Fourth Wall - S1-E7
Corrected entry: A trunk of a car opens while everything is supposed to be frozen. In the first shot it is closed, but in the second shot, it is fully open. (00:24:27 - 00:25:10)
Correction: The trunk of the grey car is open in both shots.
The mistake is correct. There were 3 shots of the car and you're referring to the last 2 shots where they were both open. The first shot of the car is after we see Anges watching through the window and the trunk is cracked open, but still down. The 2nd shot is after Anges says "run along dear", but everything else is still suppose to be frozen.
Okay, but they are not "frozen", they are watching. You can even see the woman move, so she is in the process of opening the trunk. So not a mistake regardless.
I submitted a mistake of her moving because they are meant to be frozen.
Who says they are supposed to be frozen?
I guess that would be a matter of debate. You do see the wind blowing the skirt of a woman, but other than that (and the slight moment of another girl), no-one is moving. It's one thing to say they're watching, but if they're not frozen, they're playing a great game of statue, and then they all start moving again at the same time.
Everyone else in the city of mind-controlled slaves is obviously characterized as being a little more than simply engrossed in their own curiosity; the hand movement of that woman is out of place and kinda the 'real' mistake IMHO, more like the extra adjusting her position than anything. If she opened the trunk deliberately while on camera, it would have undermined completely the tension of the scene.
Please let's just stick to the facts. No endless debates, perhaps use the discord server for that. The fact of the matter is as soon as they come out of the house everybody around them stops what they are doing and starts watching, nobody "freezes" in the middle of an action. Their roles have probably temporarily been suspended because Wanda is otherwise occupied, but that doesn't mean they stop moving altogether.
24th Mar 2021
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Plot hole: WW mentions that "As Darkseid waged war on Earth, he found a secret there", that being the Anti-life equation. But later on it turns out that after being defeated, planet Earth is so "anonymous among a trillion worlds" that he never manages to find it again and destroys another 100,000 worlds (his words!) to look for it again. That would mean that they lack any sort of navigation, and it's hardly possible anyway that the planet would be "anonymous" when it contains what Darkseid wants the most.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is in the form of a question and should be uploaded as such. There are several reasons to think why Darkseid couldn't find Earth.
The questions were rhetorical, but thanks to your comment I edited rephrasing it without any questioning ambiguity, since my interest is not much in hearing fan theories filling the gaps in the narration, but rather in pointing out the obvious contradiction where Darkseid is fully aware right from the start that the most important thing in the universe is on Earth, but can't find it again and conquers another thousands of worlds instead "still looking" for it.
Earth was a random planet they attacked and on that random planet Darkseid found a secret, he didn't go there for the secret, he found it whilst there. I don't expect him to go into his ship and put a pin on a map to remember where the planet was in case they were defeated. They expected to win. In their retreat, their way to navigate back to Earth got lost. Perfectly reasonable. You don't know anything about Darkseid's way of conquering and also no idea on how they navigate from world to world.
You know he was not alone, he had an army with a whole slew of ships and subordinates, it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to swallow the idea that they are conquering worlds going in totally blind and "conquer" worlds they can't ever visit again lacking any charting.They refer the Earth by name and know who their opponents are. An explanation would be also less stringent if Darkseid didn't learn about Anti-life at all and simply "moved on", but it's not the case.
24th Mar 2021
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Corrected entry: Dr. Stone manages to miss the parademon in his apartment (or the broken window, for that matter) when it should have been in plain sight literally as he opened the door. (01:40:40)
Correction: It was hiding behind the table. Also, he thought Victor caused all the damage, including the broken window.
I can certainly see how he could assume that Victor did the damage, ties in nicely with the broken tape player, good thought. However I still don't see where the beast could hide, if you look at the room as it is shown for instance around 46:50, there's no way not to see someone in that corner while you approach the closet - it comes from the right of the window, not the left where the table is.
He is focussed on the mess at the closet, and the missing box. He is not looking in that corner. As he approaches the corner he doesn't see the creature because it's hunched behind the table. It is also quite dark in the room.
Again, you can't help but look into that part of the house, and the table is on the left of the broken window, the creature comes from the right, where there's just a computer station too small for the winged demon to hide under, and at the same time preventing anything to just duck into the corner unnoticed (there's no corner, in that sense). That's my perception anyway.
13th Jul 2005
War of the Worlds (2005)
Corrected entry: The 'aliens' buried their vast army of complex machines thousands of years ago in many different locations throughout the planet. With all the mining and tunnelling we've done, and all the seismic and geological activity that has gone on, and all the scientific investigation of the Earth's crust by oil and mining companies (amongst others), not one was ever found? Exploration for oil reserves is carried out by bouncing extremely low frequency shock waves off the mantle which can be 3,000 kilometers deep, and that is just one industry carrying out one type of research - and not one of the Martian machines was ever detected? Given the size of their craft and the sheer numbers involved, that is utterly impossible.
Correction: How deep were these things? What were they actually made of? And where WERE they buried? Certainly in some cases they could have moved to the right position before the aliens transported themselves in. Maybe they were all buried under the ocean and they burrowed themselves into position when they received a signal from the aliens when they arrived.
Nonsense. Exploration for oil reserves is carried out by bouncing extremely low frequency shock waves off the mantle which can be 3,000 kilometers deep, and that is just one industry carrying out one type of research - and not one of the Martian machines was ever detected? Given the size of their craft and the sheer numbers involved, that is utterly impossible.
The correction simply ignores the facts. Oil companies routinely scan deep beneath the ocean for potential drilling sites, and mining companies do the same on land. They scan huge areas every day of the year. The chance of every single one of the Martians' huge vehicles and other machinery escaping undetected is absolutely zero.
Unless the aliens added special technology that helps avoid detection. Also the average thickness of the earth's crust is about 15 KM. Way too deep to be detected by those surveys.
2nd Mar 2021
Total Recall (1990)
Question: Dr. Lull says that she will do as Mr. Mclane says and "cover up any memory (Quaid) has of us or Rekall." However, when Dr. Edgemar comes in Quaid's hotel room on Mars, Edgemar reminds him that his experiences on Mars have been exactly what Quaid requested in his secret agent fantasy at Rekall, to which Quaid agrees. So obviously his memory of Rekall wasn't "covered up"?
Answer: Dr Lull was told to cover up any memory he has of them or Rekall. She replies "I'll do what I can it's pretty messy in there." She may not have done a good job. Later Cohaagen told Richter that Quaid couldn't remember anything and Richter said "that's now, in an hour he could have total recall."
Answer: He said, "Erase his memory of ever coming to Rekall," not the idea of going there, and the doctor said she'll do what she can to erase his memory, but it's pretty messy in there.
No he doesn't say that. He said "cover up any memory he has of us or Rekall." But they didn't, because he knows what Edgemar is talking about when he tells him the "demure and sleazy" woman is exactly what Quaid requested at Rekall.
Maybe they tried their best, but didn't succeed. Quite possible if his mind was already that messy.
Well at first the movie implies that they did erase his memory of Rekall, because when Harry told him he went to Rekall he had no idea that he had been there. But later in the movie he remembers that he chose "demure and sleazy" when Edgemar is talking to him. So it's an internal contradiction and plot hole.
9th Jan 2019
The Avengers (2012)
Question: How did Loki know that it was Natasha who brought Bruce onto the Helicarrier?
Answer: He doesn't mean her, he means them, the Avengers, they have brought the Hulk on board.
When Natasha calls Loki a monster, he responds, "No, love, you brought the monster."
And with the "you" he refers to the Avengers, not her specifically.
Actually, it was Natasha who brought Bruce. She had been informed by Coulson that she was specifically requested to bring Bruce with her so Loki's comment "You brought the monster" was accurate.
24th Feb 2021
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Continuity mistake: In The Lord of the Rings, when the map of Lonely Mountain is shown, it says "Here of old was Thrain king under the mountain" (referring to an ancestor of Thror and not Thorin's father who has the same name and was never king under the mountain). But throughout The Hobbit, the map instead says "Here of old was Thror king under the mountain."
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Thrain was king after Thorin. The map would have been updated after Thrain's death, and he was subsequently buried there.
Thrain II was king after Thorin I and father of Thorin II (Oakenshield), but as said he was never king under the mountain but was king during their exile, Thror was the one who went back to Erebor to sit on the throne again until Smaug sacked it. The Thrain mentioned on the map is Thrain I (father of Thorin I), who is the founder of the kingdom under the mountain after Durin's folk were exiled from Moria by the Balrog (Durin's Bane, Durin being Thrain I's grandfather).
Also, even disregarding that, it is impossible for the map to have been updated to say a different dwarf's name, because the map is given to Bilbo at the end of the trilogy, and the ending shows a close-up of the map with "Thror" still written on it, whereas in the LOTR trilogy, where we see the exact same scene of Gandalf arriving at Old Bilbo's house (albeit from Gandalf's point of view rather than Old Bilbo's), Gandalf sees the map and it says "Thrain" on it.
27th Feb 2021
Hulk (2003)
Question: Why does Hulk agree to give David his power near the end of the movie?
Answer: Because he knew it would overwhelm him.
Well to be honest, I have no clue why David wanted the Hulk power so badly instead of being satisfied with the being he's become at the end of the movie. The guy can turn into anything he wants.
Because he always wanted more. He is a greedy character. Even though he was that powerful, he felt Hulk was more powerful than him, and he wanted that power.
23rd Feb 2021
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Other mistake: When Lewis looks at the cup that he got from the coffee machine, the cup has two Jacks and two Aces. When he looks at the bottom of the cup, it has a Queen underneath giving him two pairs, but he tells Gwen the receptionist that he got a full house.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There are more cards displayed on the right side of the 2 aces, we can't see them. There are probably 2 queens there.
No there aren't. There's only 4 cards on the side of the cup. That's the whole point of Wildcard Poker cups, 4 cards with one on the bottom.
Well actually there are 5 on the side of the cup, but indeed that still wouldn't be enough to get a full house with a queen. But still, he is allowed to be wrong.
There's only 4 cards on the side of the cup and the card at the bottom. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovq9xOQNamk and go to the 00:36 mark.
It's possibly because multiple takes were made of this scene and different cups were used. This can be evidenced by the cup that falls to the floor being different to the one seen in his hand. Presumably, in one take he did have a full house, but they forgot to use the correct cup in the shot that was used.
19th Feb 2021
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Just before Doc shows his plan with the DeLorean and the train Marty checks the walkie-talkies and Doc confirms it that they work. How are they able to get the walkie-talkies to work in 1885? I'm thinking Doc invented something so Doc and Marty can communicate with each other with them.
Answer: Given Doc's scientific ability (and some suspension of disbelief) it would be easy enough to rig up a makeshift battery that would last long enough. Or indeed they've just got lucky and the walkie-talkies' batteries still have enough life in them. They're not mobile phones, they don't need masts or any infrastructure, they just connect directly to each other.
Like you said, walkie-talkies work independently of any infrastructure, which is what I think the question was more about. However, the battery was invented way before 1885 with the first lead acid rechargeable battery being invented in 1859 with pasted electrode batteries being invented in the 1880's. So it's less about Doc rigging up a battery and just using what's already available or charging the batteries it came with (if we are assuming the batteries ran out of power).
The best batteries they had in those days were crude, wet batteries made out of earthenware and filled with sulphuric acid. They were cumbersome, dangerous and didn't have a lot of voltage or low current. Hardly suitable for a walkie-talkie that needs at least 9 volts. But I suppose it's possible Doc had some charged self-made batteries sitting at home to keep them going.
Definitely not "crude", certainly not as advanced as today, but the lead acid battery is the same technology a lot of batteries use today. They even had electric vehicles prior to 1885. My point was Doc didn't have to invent technology that didn't exist (as opposed to what some say he would have to do to get an 80's camcorder to play on a 50's TV). They had rechargeable batteries back then so it wouldn't be a stretch that Doc could recharge the batteries he had.
Answer: 1955 Doc got him some new batteries ("Just in case, fresh batteries for your walkie talkie. Oh what about that floating device?") They only used them on the train so the batteries would still be charged. In regards to how they work, they don't rely on phone masts, satellites, WiFi etc as they send radio waves to each other and not to any sort of base station.
29th Dec 2020
Stargate SG-1 (1997)
Question: On every planet SG-1 travels to, plants are the same color as those on earth. Shouldn't plants have different colors on different planets?
Answer: The Aliens choose planets that were similar to Earth. They possessed human beings, so they needed worlds with vegetation and atmosphere. In the original movie, their race was dying and humans were the only ones who could give them eternal life - they took many inhabitants as slave labor.
Answer: There have been times where plants are different color, but generally speaking, green is evolutionarily better at capturing the best amount of sunlight energy for photosynthesis. Thus, plants evolved to have green chlorophyll on other planets as well.
Answer: Planets with Stargates were chosen because of the similarities to Earth.
That's ridiculous. Stargate command would never choose a planet based on similarities to earth unless it would to make sure it was safe to travel to.
Stargate command had nothing to do with where the Stargates were. The answer is saying those that placed the Stargates throughout the galaxy chose Earth-like planets. More accurately though, inhabitable planets, which tend to be similar to Earth.
The Ancients put the Stargates on planets, and since their physiology was very similar to modern Earth humans, it stands to reason that they only chose to put planets which could support a similar lifeform. Hence, why most planets or moons resembled Earth at some point in their history.
Huh? First of all, you're trying to surmise what a fictional agency would do. Second, SG-1 and other SG teams frequently visited both Earth-like planets and planets with toxic conditions.
Stargates were placed at worlds that were similar to Earth, this mostly due to the ancients establishing themselves on Earth over 50 million years ago and finding planets to colonize from there. Some worlds may have become inhospitable over the millions of years after the stargate was built though. It is quite possible all these planets were seeded with life from Earth and planets close to Earth's appearance, hence the same vegetation and animal life.
13th Sep 2005
Back to the Future (1985)
Corrected entry: On the DVD version, in the scene where Doc gets shot and then later reveals to Marty that he was wearing a bullet proof vest. A vest does not work in the way shown in the movie. It doesn't repel bullets (as shown in the "impact points" in the vest he displays), it absorbs them. Read how a vest works from howstuffworks dot com and you'll see what I mean. In addition, it looks like he is wearing only a Threat Level 2a class vest. An AK47 or similar weapon with a 7.62mm round would go clean through the vest, through Doc, and out the other side thus killing him and ending the story. The only style of vest that can withstand that sort of impact is a Threat Level 3 class vest (the style that specialized units in the military wear). This style is very bulky and is extremely difficult to conceal like Doc did. In addition, it has a ceramic plate in it which would have shattered upon the first impact and failed to protect against multiple impacts from that kind of weapon, and definitely not show "impact points" of twisted metal.
Correction: Doc is a brilliant scientist as well as an inventor. He had the time and the ability to invent his own special material that works like no other material known to man. If he can invent a time machine, I'm sure a bulletproof material would be easy for him.
As he stated in 1955, none of his inventions had ever worked. When he heard about and was shown the Delorean, he was amazed because it worked. I don't think that he would have been able to invent a jacket that repels bullets that great.
He is still a brilliant inventor/engineer that eventually makes the DeLorean run on bio-fuel and makes a train fly. Surely he can invent himself a vest.
Unless he is super paranoid I don't think he thought he would be shot.
Correction: After 30 years it's possible for him to invent the vest. Also, from what I see, the vest hasn't repelled the rounds, as we can see where they've hit as the rounds have impacted the vest.
30th May 2008
Back to the Future (1985)
Corrected entry: When Marty shows the video to the 1955 Doc, the 1985 Doc on the video states their location as the "Twin Pines Mall". Since Marty already knocked down one of the pines, the mall should've already been renamed to "Lone Pine Mall" on the video.
Correction: The timestream in the Back To The Future series is demonstrated as being somewhat resistant to changes; when Marty interferes with his parents' first meeting, he doesn't start to fade out for about a week after that happens. When Marty shows Doc the video, not enough time has passed for the effects of the timeline change to appear on the tape.
When someone time travels, they don't change the timeline they are from, they just create branching timelines every time someone makes a decision. This recording was made in the first timeline, so it would still be Twin Pines Mall.
That's not the case though. The photo Marty brings of his siblings fades out, newspaper headlines brought from the past/future change, etc.
Except he was slowly disappearing at the end of the movie. Which wouldn't happen if he was "branching off." They mix up linear timelines and parallel universes in these movies. They always, always screw up time travel movies.
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.
Correction: Another of those entries that is really just an "I would have acted differently" submission. Faced with a German barbarian, nothing a Roman soldier does with a weapon that stops him, is a mistake.
Except that the Romans were a highly organised killing machine on the battlefield. Not really much room for improvisation and a personal style in hand-to-hand combat.
Spiny Norman
All medieval fights are messy, all medieval fights required combatants to improvise to survive it. Doesn't matter how organized an army is (and the Roman armies were a lot less organized than they are portrayed in movies), once the fighting starts it's pretty much chaos till one side wins.
lionhead
Eh... No it's not. I'm sorry but if you write "medieval Roman warfare", that sort of gives away that you're not an expert. ANCIENT Roman warfare on the other hand has been extensively studied by military history anoraks. (Anyway, are you following me around now, or what? This isn't supposed to be a personal thing).
Spiny Norman
I didn't write "medieval roman warfare" I wrote "medieval fights." If medieval fights were messy, imagine fights 300 years earlier. Extensive studies show that the way the Roman Empire legions fought in the border wars was in fact a lot of improvisation and they had some major defeats against Germanic tribes caused by overextension. These soldiers were far less trained and thus improvised. Not attacking you personally, but defending the correction. If you got a problem take it to the discord.
lionhead
Romans were in fact ahead of the inhabitants of the Middle Ages in almost everything. This is common knowledge. It's sort of useful to know what you're talking about when making confident statements. (I have no interest in discord, I only reply here in the hope that people won't fall for misinformation).
Spiny Norman