Corrected entry: Upon reentry, a crew member comments that the atmosphere is like "breathing through an exhaust pipe, CO2 is over 3%, two minutes without a suit and you're dead." However, human beings can live in an environment of over 5% CO2, with only mild discomfort in the 3% range.
lionhead
23rd Jun 2012
Prometheus (2012)
11th May 2017
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Did Obi-Wan know Anakin and Padme are married? Since she thinks Obi-Wan could help them with Anakin seeing with the force that Padme would die giving birth after Anakin broke the Jedi code of getting married. Doesn't it seem that Obi-Wan would not help after what Anakin had done, unless he knew about it?
Chosen answer: Obi Wan didn't know they were married. He only realises Anakin is the father of Padme's child after noticing her emotional response when he asks if she knows where Anakin is. Even though Anakin has broken the Jedi code Padme still thinks Obi Wan might help them because he is their best friend. At worst Anakin would be expelled from the Jedi and the controversy would end Padme's political career but she makes it clear she doesn't care about any of that. Anakin, however does and shoots down the idea.
The fact that they keep the relationship secret baffles me a bit. I mean, they live together in a city. They were obviously shown as close in AOTC.
It makes very little sense, to the point of being absurd. It is portrayed as if Obi-Wan and Anakin are best friends, but Obi-Wan never even asks where Anakin lives when he's not on duty.
It's not like Obi-Wan and Anakin carpool or invite each other to dinner. They are Jedi partners, in service of the Republic and Jedi Order. Even if it were all happening on 1 planet Anakin and Padme could easily keep their marriage a secret, let alone from Jedi who travel from system to system and are extremely busy all the time.
23rd Nov 2010
Back to the Future (1985)
Corrected entry: When Marty is trying to prove to Doc that he is from the future, he shows him his driver's license and the photo of himself and his siblings. Doc immediately dismisses them both. Doesn't Doc notice that the quality of the color in the photos is much better than any color film that existed in the 1950's? Wouldn't that grab his attention?
Correction: If he actually took the time to examine it, maybe. Think about it, if someone walked up and told you he was from the future and showed you a document to prove it, would you believe him and examine it or humor the weirdo and get away as quick as you could?
22nd Jan 2021
Wonder Woman (2017)
Corrected entry: The Germans on the ship should've opened fire on the beach when they saw the battle going on. No reason is given why they didn't.
Correction: Perhaps they didn't want to fire on their own troops as the ship started capsizing. Not an ideal scenario in which to try and accurately target enemies on a beach.
Well in every war America's been in cannons are firing even as troops are engaged on the battlefield.This was also quite risky and necessary, hence why I brought this up.
It is not customary to fire on your own troops. Not in any war. Highly rarely it is inevitable, but not in this scenario.
That is not standard practice, and the ship was sinking at the same time. The crew had other things to worry about.
22nd Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Continuity mistake: When the flashback with Asteria is shown she's got hazel or green eyes. In the post credits scene when played by Lynda Carter she's got light blue eyes.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It should be noted, Lynda Carter played both parts. Those are literally Lynda Carter's eyes we see in the flashback.
Still doesn't explain why they are green in the flashback. Lynda Carter has blue eyes. Probably caused by a color filter.
It could be a lighting issue or the way the armor made her eyes look different, but it's not a mistake since it's the same color eyes. (There are optical illusions that make some people see one color as two different colors based on the surrounding color).
10th Jan 2008
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Corrected entry: In the Ministry of Magic near the end, Neville tells Harry that he couldn't pick up the prophecy ball because it had Harry's name on it and only the person whose name is on a prophecy may remove it. But a few moments later Hermione is able to use her wand to make numerous prophecy balls fly off the shelves in order to escape the Death Eaters.
Correction: Neville never says that. He calls to Harry and says "It's got your name on it". Later, Lucius Malfoy tells Harry that only the person whom the prophecy is about can retrieve it, meaning retrieve the prophecy from the ball. Anyone can touch the ball. You'll notice the prophecy isn't spoken from the ball until Harry holds it.
But why does Lucius Malfoy want it if he can't listen to it?
Lucius was ordered by Voldemort to bring it to him. Voldemort can listen to it just like Harry can. It involves both of them.
13th Nov 2018
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: They didn't make it out of the cave with the grail because they dawdled... I wonder, would someone be able to make it out running at a dead sprint once they crossed the seal? And if so, does that mean that they're home free? Or would disaster follow them outside of the cave?
Answer: The implication is that disaster would follow them outside of the cave as well. It wouldn't make much sense if you could simply outrun the disaster.
"Followed by disaster" is a kind of curse, a thing not common in Christianity. It doesn't make much sense anyhow. A seal is just a dot - OK, so let's at least grant that the seal represents a circle that the grail has to stay in. Who decided where those borders are? The grail was taken there during the first crusade. That was closer to 1938 than it was to 33 AD. The three knights could move the grail about then. Why not afterwards? The knights could have built the traps. But the borders could only have been set by god, in an unusually late and completely atypical miracle.
There are several examples of curses in the Christian Bible: Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at Sodom, the plagues visited upon Egypt, Adam and Eve are cursed for eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, etc. The knights did not move the grail around after finding it, they stayed in the temple for 150 years and then two left leaving the third behind. The great seal and it's restriction was already in place when the knights got there.
Where in the movie is that stated? I interpreted the knight's story as them having made that place. Looks like it isn't actually specified. But if God made it, then I submit that he would have used Greek, not Latin, for the stepping stones. (All of those curses are from the old testament. The book where god kills firstborn children as long as they're Egyptian. Grail is by definition new testament where you turn the other cheek. There simply are no curses in the gospel, that's just not how Jesus rolled).
The tests were made by the knights, but the seal had God's power in it. Just like the cup.
It's still a bit dodgy. What if you take a shovel and dig yourself a back door? Basically this film really excels at stuff that makes no sense but helps the storytelling, or to be precise, creates dramatic effects.
Every fictional story is like that in some way. That's why it's called fictional. It's just a story.
Not a particularly convincing argument, "stuff happens for no reason all the time", if I may say so. Why is this website even here then? The fact is that some stories are more coherent than others. (♫ "In olden days, a hole in the plot, would seem to matter, quite a lot. Now heaven knows, anything goes..." ♫);).
It's the difference in what story they want told. Is it a fairy tale or based on actual events? A huge difference in plausibility between the two. The site is there to look at mistakes, not how believable the story is.
It is not set in another universe so plausibility isn't somehow suspended. Maybe take a look at the categories recognised by this website. Plot holes, factual errors, even stupidity. (They? Who are they?).
It is set in a fictional universe because it's not a true story. With "they" I mean the writers/director. Mistakes in a plot (plot holes) have nothing to do with how believable the story is. As long as it's plausible, it's not a mistake.
Pretty sure it's the same universe, just with some added characters/events. What about the total lack of spaceships or orcs or talking animals for example? The seal business is not a mistake YET, but it's very dodgy because no-one knows how it works or why. Like all Indys "trapped" secret places, it's (among other things) unclear who resets the traps for the next visitor. We can't brush it ALL off as "the hand of god" every time.
Huge amounts of stuff in films isn't exhaustively explained. Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that's perfectly believable. There's zero evidence either way to say how "followed by disaster" would manifest, and just because there's not a thorough explanation doesn't mean that it's "dodgy", and it's not worth bickering about either, because there's no concrete answer either way.
OK but I would like to note that not everyone who offers creative explanations has recently seen the movie; some people just invent their own. E.g. "followed by disaster" is not an actual explanation from the movie, it was just one of the suggestions made here and only here. Or the ones on my own question below. All I'm saying is, it's very hard to tell what the "rules" / "logic" of this place are supposed to be, so I understand what the OP was driving at.
16th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Other mistake: Flying the jet plane, Steve is surprised by the lights in the sky and needs Diana to explain to him that it's fireworks and it's the 4th of July. Fireworks are something that has existed for centuries, and Steve himself was the one who found the plane ticket for the 4th commenting "If this date is right." (01:11:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He didn't realise it was the 4th of July, he's just surprised to see fireworks, not that he doesn't know what they are. The date on the plane ticket he just forgot.
He asks "What's that?" when the fireworks are visible and can't really be mistaken as anything else, and he himself was fully aware of the date before they headed to the hangar, but Diana says "The 4th" and he asks "The 4th of July?" like it's the first time he even thinks which month is it. If you listen to it, the emphasis is on the question in the delivery of the line as in "It's the 4th of July?", not as in "Oh, the 4th of July, right!"
She says it's the fourth and he instantly realises it's fireworks for the fourth of July. There is no indication whatsoever that Steve doesn't know what fireworks are and your movie mistake suggests the makers intended Steve not to know what fireworks are, which is ridiculous. Your interpretation of the scene is just wrong.
He does not instantly realise it's fireworks for the fourth of July. She has to reassure him that "oh it's OK, it's just fireworks", then she says "The 4th, of course" and he replies, as I said "The 4th of July?" with huge emphasis on the surprise. Sorry if you find my interpretation of the scene 'just wrong', but if they did not have his character call attention on the date literally 5 minutes earlier in the movie (it is a fact), I would have not reported it just for the fireworks part alone (which is more subjective, we read differently, and I respect your position).
14th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Chapter 15: The Believer - S2-E7
Plot hole: The Imperial terminals have facial scan recognition...or just facial scan, really, since ANYONE regardless of being part of the army or not can just access any information of any level, as long as they have ANY face that the app can scan and identify as not being a known criminal.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The facial scan prevents droids from stealing data from terminals.
And also criminals from doing that. It runs a check, as I said in the entry. Against "Any New Republic registry", even, which should disqualify also Mayfeld being a convicted felon, but that's another issue. Who designs a security system that does complex checks about who is a wanted criminal or part of 'the other side' but does not check if you are part of their side? Also, any low level trooper (or nobody, even the janitor) can just access any information of any level, including the location of their special forces cruiser.
Maybe it just checks if you're human. You never see non-humans as part of the empire. A lot of non-humans are as "subspecies" by the empire.
14th Jan 2021
The Mask (1994)
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Plot hole: The established rule of the wishing stone says that you get one wish, to the point that Max couldn't grant a second wish to the guy who wished a Porsche even if Max was really eager to get his help, and warned his son against wasting his, screaming disappointed when he did waste it. But all of a sudden, he can grant Cheetah a second wish because he's "feeling generous". Without rules, he'd be some omnipotent being who can do anything. The fun part is that there was no need at all for this mess, since Barbara's second wish by its nature (and even the way she formulates it) supersedes the first...but Max couldn't know that. (02:01:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Max is taking from whoever wishes, he choses what. What he takes, he gives to Barbara and himself. He takes the health, she gets the fury. That way he grants her wish without her actually wishing. Same with himself, taking what he wants. And yes, what she wishes does supersede her first wish, but e still holds those powers as well.
That's just changing the established rule out of the blue and just for one person. Why would she get more than one wish when everyone else can't and earlier he was shown to have that limit and be frustrated by it?
It can also be pointed out that the original stone gave Barbara her wish. When Max Lord became the Dreamstone, he became something else. She never got a wish from him. When he says he was feeling generous, he wasn't saying he'll grant her a 2nd wish, he's saying he won't take anything from her.
Then he did not get what he wished for, since his wish was literally "I wish to be you, the Dreamstone itself." And him not taking anything from her is again a change of the rule.
And since he didn't turn into a crystal, he became something else. He had the power. And there was no "rule" something had to be taken, Max was taking something out of greed. The stone did have a natural consequence, which Barbara experienced by losing her humanity in order to become Cheetah. But that's noting to do with Max taking anything or the rules changing.
The conversation is shifting away from the original point; she gets 2 wishes and nobody else does, not even people he wants them to. It cannot be because they are considered separate entities, because then the previous stone is not considered in existence anymore and then Barbara and Diana's desires should have been nullified.
Technically you can't call this a mistake. The stone being absorbed by Max doesn't destroy the power the stone held, nor is there a president for this. So there is no telling what would change from the original powers and or ruleset of the stone. Max never granted a 2nd wish and stating he was feeling generous was just a means to get the wish spoken out. Max also offered Diana a wish even though she already had a wish happen by the original stone. The question is, did the stone restore?
It's all the same thing. The problem with a lot of these mistake entries is making false assumptions about what should or shouldn't happen and not understanding who the characters are and what's going on. Yes, the film has flaws, but this isn't a forum to express your personal thoughts about what you think is wrong with the film (some don't even sound like original ideas since they're word exactly like what you can find online everywhere).
Since it's not a forum, I shouldn't reply to something not pertaining to the entry itself, but thanks for saying that you can read this 'everywhere', means I am not the only one thinking this way and perhaps you should wonder why? But that aside he can't grant wishes to someone who already expressed them not take nothing away, until he just does. My original entry says who when why based on the movie itself. The movie being flawed or not is not really my point, I hope it's clear that whenever something about a movie is posted, it does not mean to just 'riff' on the movie or 'bash' it or anything per se. Enjoying a movie and its plot with its simplifications and sometimes metaphorical licenses has nothing to do with examining a plot point and read through the fine print.
Maybe instead of endless comments one should just wait with commenting until the suggested entry is actually liked enough and corrects your mistake. If people don't agree with the suggested correction, no need to discuss it.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Stupidity: Max is shown fulfilling the various wishes that people express to him, and never turn down any; it would not fit what he became anyway, which is a wishing stone. If people touch him, he has to comply. The wishes he can grant have seemingly no limit, and yet, in this predicament it takes a humongous level of suspension of disbelief to assume that in a climate of global war and chaos, NOBODY wishes for things to go better in any way and the nuclear war to be stopped. There are even in some street scenes "Ban nukes" signs; surely some of those guys must have wished for the madness to stop.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The Dreamstone was also created by the Duke of Deception to bring chaos into the world. It brought out people's selfish desires. When Max Lord became the Dreamstone, he was able to continue to manipulate people in wishing what they truly desired, wishing for more than than had. In the comics, Max Lord had the ability to telepathically alter people's minds after he became a metahuman, so it seems the film incorporated this power as well. It/He made people wish for selfish things. That was the purpose of Wonder Woman's monologue, to tell the people to become less selfish, so give up their wants, to be the hero to save the world by giving up their wish (and wish for a better world would have cost too much, so that wouldn't be an option).
"Cost too much" is not a rule established in the movie, since desires like the deportation of the Irish, "Wish I never met you" "want all the money in the world" someone says in background have astonishingly powerful ramifications. LIkewise why would it be an implication that he is the one who makes them wish only selfish things? The movie wants to say that there are no 'good' wishes when you take shortcuts to make them happen (or at least it tries to referencing the Monkey paw) but to do so shows only wishes that are rotten to begin with.
Suggested correction: With so many people wishing at the same time, it's logical a lot of people are wishing for the opposite. I'm sure the stone's power has some way of dealing with conflicting wishes. For example, someone could wish for the world to blow up or burn, whilst others wish that everybody will be happy and healthy. So, nothing much happens that threatens human existence (the stone would be worthless if all humans are dead) as those wishes cancel eachother out. But the nuclear war happened before Max started talking to everybody, so that is happily continuing.
Most people would have wished the nukes to disappear pretty instantly especially with the world falling into chaos and everyone panicking about it.
And others would have wished for them to hit and kill the "heathens" or "hateful." Cancellation.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Character mistake: When Barbara gives the hilarious back story of the wishing stone, she mentions that "Romulus, the last emperor of Rome, he had it on him when he was assassinated in 476." That's an amazing historical find in itself, because Romulus Augustulus (just "Romulus" is not really correct) was never assassinated; he had to abdicate the title in that year, but then lived the rest of his life in exile. It's worth noting that the novelization of the movie talks about Romulus, Rome's FIRST ruler, and his 'mysterious disappearance'. (01:27:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not a mistake in the movie for Barbara to give inaccurate information on history, since she is rushing through all of it without fact checking everything. He focus is the stone, not what happened to Romulus.
I don't see what's wrong with saying it's a character mistake, really. By that logic, any bit of historical context provided in a movie could be incorrectly stated as long as it comes from someone who is in a rush. I find more interesting to report when something said in a movie for a serious purpose is wrong and not challenged.
She's not an educated historian, OK for her to be mistaken. If she however says wrongful things about something she is supposed to be an expert in, that's a character mistake.
It's not OK for her to be mistaken because when you specifically research for something (she has super-fast reading powers now and her task was to do some complex history research, it was not a random mistake playing Trivial Pursuit) there's no way to get that piece of information wrong; she is tracing the path the stone took, the fate of its last known owner is important. That being said, I don't particularly care about her status as expert (which she is, having done a specific research as said); dramatically speaking it's the bit of historical context the movie provides, it should not have mistakes in it when they do not have a payoff.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Factual error: Diana conjures a shield of invisibility for the jet, but must have also summoned a sound-dampening spell, since the two are comfortably chatting without a helmet and / or usage of the intercom. (01:08:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You correct your own mistake. Not only is the plane invisible, but also silent as is heard when the plane lifts up and disappears.
I was being facetious. The lack of noise happens way before she starts doing the magic hand thing. If anything, it happens in a ton of movies (prolly there's already an entry in the Common mistakes section somewhere) for people to communicate inside aircrafts or other exceptionally noisy vehicles without the aid of intercoms.
Before she does the invisibility trick Steve hasn't put on the full throttle yet.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Factual error: Diana tells Steve to sum up Barbara's report that the stone appeared in places that all have something in common; "Their civilization collapsed catastrophically, without a trace as to why." That's just ridiculous; one could even argue it could apply to the Maya, who did suffer a sharp decline historians have not reached consensus on, or the Kingdom of Kush's, due to not a great abundance of historical sources, but Carthage? And the Roman Empire had been in a crisis for centuries and it is far from being some mystical overnight disappearance. (01:27:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She never says this sentence. She just said the stone was there, not that it caused unexplained collapses of civilizations.
Never? "The stone has traveled the world to seemingly random and different places, but they all have something in common; their civilization collapsed catastrophically, without a trace as to why." She says that sentence as I quoted it. If that's not a clear implication (together with what happens in this movie when in less than a week the whole world is on the brink of destruction) that it is the stone that caused it, I don't know what it is.
She doesn't say it in the version of the movie I have. Not at that timestamp anyway.
She says it to Steve when she hangs up, my timestamp is about half a minute off since I pointed the beginning of the conversation about civilizations collapsing, I apologize if it caused an inconvenience.
Oh wait, now I know what you mean. She is just jumping to conclusions there. She means that the real reason was the stone, not what history tells them.
8th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Revealing mistake: Steve Trevor approaches and stands before an oval, wall-mounted mirror, incredulously looking at himself and seeing a stranger's face in close-up. Steve finally smiles approvingly, turns to Diana Prince and says, "He's got it! Y'know, I like him!" The camera immediately cuts to two wide shots from behind Steve standing directly in front of the mirror (only a couple of feet away from it), but there is no reflection of Steve in the mirror at all. This error reveals that the "mirror" is actually a hole in the wall (a low-budget practical effect used in films of decades past for such mirror illusions). They probably filmed a lot more footage of Steve mugging in front of the "mirror" but edited it out, because this old-school effect is notoriously difficult to get exactly right. (00:49:50 - 00:50:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They don't use this trick for the scene, the actor playing "the other guy" is standing in front of the mirror himself when you see him in the reflection, since he has black hair and Chris Pine does not. And Chris Pine can only be seen without the mirror. Later in the wide shots the angle of the mirror simply doesn't show Chris Pine's reflection. Only a tiny second at the start of the wide shot can you see it is actually a real mirror, when you see a piece of Chris Pine's hair in it.
As I said, they probably filmed a lot more footage of Steve mugging in front of the "mirror" but edited it out. When Steve approaches the "mirror" in close-up, you can see that there are two distinct actors (which is the whole purpose of the scene): Chris Pine's hair is a distinctly different color and texture, and the actor in the "reflection" is taller. Plus, their subtle body and head movements are not perfectly synchronized, as would be the case in a true mirror-image. It's the old hole-in-the-wall trick.
But it is a real mirror, as it reflects his hair. So it's not a hole in the wall anyway. The back of the head you see when seeing "the other guy" in the mirror is that same guy's head, not Chris Pine's. No need to use that trick.
No, the hair color and texture of the back-of-the-head shot are distinctly different from the guy in the reflection. The whole purpose of the shot is that Chris Pine in the foreground IS NOT the guy in the reflection in the background. The hair color and texture is different, and the guy in the reflection is taller; plus, the body and head movements are not synchronized. Go back and watch the scene (if you can stand watching the movie again).
23rd Dec 2020
Taken (2008)
Plot hole: When Brian is on the boat, we see 3 girls from the auction being ushered into the sheikh's stateroom. He eliminates all the bodyguards, the last of who is the leader with the knife, and who is the only person who knows which of the girls is Kimmi. When Brian enters the stateroom, the sheikh is holding her at gunpoint. How did he know she was Brian's daughter?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is a question, not a plot hole. It is possible the man who bought Kim at the auction had to explain to his boss, the sheikh, why he bought her. He probably told him about the troubles he has had and the possibility that this man is still searching for his daughter, the girl in front of him. Hearing the fighting going on the sheikh correctly assumes this is the same man and tries to use her as a shield against him when he enters and threatens her with a knife.
Don't think so - lot of probable's. The Sheik's right-hand man would have assumed Brian was dead as St Clair's men had captured him, but he spotted him on the boat and only told his boss he would 'kill the dog', not which girl he had come for. Agree correction - she was held by knife-point.
He bought a girl he was not instructed to buy, for a lot of money. Of course he had to explain that to the Sheikh.
Not a plot hole, not even a contrivance. The sheik just grabbed whichever girl that was with him. It didn't matter who she was, it was just a case of "let me go or 'll kill this random, innocent girl." The fact that it was Kim was a simple coincidence (1 in 3 chance).
1st May 2020
Total Recall (1990)
Question: Does the movie give any indication with any evidence in the movie that Douglas is dreaming for the ending?
Answer: Verhoeven points out that if a viewer believes the whole film is a dream, then Edgemar's prediction that Quaid will end up being lobotomized is fulfilled in the fade to white which ends the movie.
Answer: When Dr. Edgemar is in the hotel room with Quaid and Lori, Quaid puts a gun to Edgemar's head and says that if it's all a dream, that Quaid could just pull the trigger and it wouldn't really matter. Edgemar goes into details about consequences of what would happen if Quaid killed him. As seen, when Quaid kills Edgemar the walls of the hotel room crash down, Quaid believes he's the rebel savior, had visions of alien civilization and is best friends with Cohaagen and the white light that is at the end of the movie indicates that Quaid was lobotomized.
Answer: There are many signs that the adventure was reality. When Quaid watched the news (before going to Rekall), the newscasters asked Cohaagen about Kuato and alien artifacts (the alien reactor) in the Mars Pyramid Mine. Lori didn't want Quaid going to Mars or thinking about Mars. Harry didn't want Quaid to go to Rekall, as he sounded very intense when he said this to Quaid. The Rekall technicians popped Quaid's memory cap before they could implant his ego trip. Richter and Helm were watching Quaid the whole time and his trip to Rekall made them attempt to kill him before he could remember the alien reactor and his previous identity. Edgemar lied when he said Quaid's "dream" started in the middle of the implant procedure when Dr. Lull had told McClane they hadn't implanted the ego trip yet. Edgemar shouldn't have been sweating if it was a dream. Richter, Helm, Lori, Edgemar, and Benny were all trying to help Cohaagen keep his evil power and prevent Mars from having free air.
This isn't true. The DVD commentary states that if the viewer is believing that the story is a dream, then it begins right where the camera cuts to McClane and his female client watching the TV monitor. The bit where Quaid resists and Renata says she hasn't implanted the ego trip yet are part of the dream. The clue is that McClane's statement is "the trip is as real as any memory in your head." So for it to come across as real, it has to begin right there and then.
If Lori is really Quaid's wife, it seems strange that he would dream of her trying to kill him. When Richter and Helm are trying to kill Quaid, several people get killed in the crossfire. When Edgemar and Lori visit Quaid, Lori gives Edgemar a look right before he takes out the red pill, almost as if Lori is signaling Edgemar to do that. They are awfully eager for Quaid to take that pill, and the film's novelization states that the pill could possibly be a knockout dose or lethal. If Edgemar is a projection, he should not be sweating, which makes Quaid realise Edgemar is real. Those four agents who blast through the wall were back there listening to the conversation and waiting to see if Edgemar's plan with the pill would work. Richter and Helm were downstairs in the bar waiting to hear from Lori and Edgemar that they captured Quaid. If Edgemar was telling the truth, why would Richter and Helm be down in the bar waiting? Also, the novel points more toward reality.
You are forgetting to assume the dream shows him stuff that didn't actually happen, like innocents being killed in crossfire. If it is all a dream it all doesn't matter, he is being fed lies by the implants, about his wife, about Cohaagen, about everything, the fact it connects to real events before he went to Recall (which don't show the truth at all) just shows the ingenuity of the implants, who use his memories to create the story. Edgemar sweating could be another illusion caused by the implants. If it really is all a dream the moment he killed Edgemar the implants screwed his brain up enough there was no way of knowing what was real anymore, and his wife is sitting besides him at Recall crying that he isn't going to wake up anymore, whilst Quaid is experiencing killing her in his dream. This then goes on for him until the end it lobotomizes him. That is, if you believe it was a dream.
There is a villains site called Villains Wiki. Edgemar is listed on this site along with Cohaagen, Richter, Helm, Lori, Harry, and Benny. The article about Edgemar states that Quaid realises Edgemar is working for Cohaagen when he sees him sweating. It also states that Edgemar's goal is to aid Cohaagen in his plans. Also mentioned is the fact that Richter is Lori's real husband and is angered when Quaid kills her the same way he kills Edgemar.
Answer: The novel also reveals another detail that indicates reality. Before it is revealed that Richter is Lori's real husband, Quaid doesn't seem to love Lori. He dreams of Melina every night and actually loves Melina despite being with Lori. Quaid wonders why Lori married him, and she doesn't seem to have aged since their wedding. Once Lori reveals that their eight years together is actually a six-week memory implant, Quaid realises that is why his eight year memory of Lori hasn't changed. When Lori tries to detain Quaid for Richter and Helm at the Hilton Hotel, she tries to kill Melina because she knows Melina is Quaid's dream girl.
Answer: The novel by Piers Anthony has other signs that indicate Quaid's adventure was reality. When Richter and Helm are looking for Quaid on Earth, it says the bug in Quaid's head alerted them about his trip to Rekall. Richter and Helm went to Rekall to question the Rekall staff and dispatch them. When Richter and Helm are chasing Quaid and Melina on Mars, Quaid asks Melina if she has ever heard of Rekall, and she tells him she used to model for Rekall, which explains why Quaid saw Melina's face on the screen during his implant procedure at Rekall. Furthermore, Edgemar tells Quaid he is still at Rekall strapped in the implant chair, but McClane told the other Rekall staff members to dump Quaid in the Johnnycab and send him home. So it doesn't make sense that Quaid is still at Rekall after they sent him home.
20th Nov 2019
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: What was Ron's joke when he said "Next time I see Crookshanks I'll let him know"? I knew he was making some sort of joke or being sarcastic. Can someone please explain it to me?
I don't understand why Ron would joke about that. He owed Hermione an apology. And why didn't he just say sorry?
They are just kids. He just doesn't feel like he should apologize to her for accusing her cat of killing his rat. There have probably been incidents of Crookshanks chasing Scabbers, it is a cat after all.
6th May 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Trivia: Thanos loses his hand - someone's lost a limb in nearly every MCU film since Iron Man 3.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: With the exception of Bucky in Civil War and Maw's buddy in Infinity War, only in the Phase 2 movies has someone lost an arm in every movie.
Klaw has his metal arm removed in Black Panther.
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: They're just rattling off a list of details about the atmosphere, concluding with the fact that it will kill you. Its lethal toxicity is not to do with the CO2 levels.
Phixius ★
"Not to do with the CO2 levels"? Read the quote. They're saying you'll die in minutes from exposure to 3% CO2. That would make mouth-to-mouth resuscitation an impossibility as we exhale about 4% CO2. Even if they meant carbon monoxide - ie. What comes out of an exhaust pipe - you'd still have have to be WELL over 3% concentration for it to be lethal within minutes.
The quote does say the atmosphere is over 3%, not at 3%. Could be 6%.
lionhead
It's unlikely after saying 71% nitrogen and 21% oxygen that "over 3%" would mean double the amount. Over 3% would mean less than 4%. But I would like to know what studies shows humans surviving over 5% CO2 levels to see what the rest of the air is made up of.
Bishop73