Corrected entry: When Indy and his father come to the crossroads after having escaped the Nazis the sign says "Berlin" and "Venedig". When they leave it says "Berlin" and "Venice". It's the same side of the sign both times.
lionhead
26th Apr 2006
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Correction: It is not the same side of the sign, the last shot is from the front.
22nd May 2008
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Corrected entry: After the motorcycle chase, Indiana drives past the road sign, which points to Venice and Berlin. He then talks to his dad before looking straight ahead at a sign which is behind him.
Correction: He's not looking at the sign, he's making a decision. The shot of the sign was for the audience's benefit.
The combination of the two shots is conventional movie language for him looking ahead at the sign (which, I agree, signifies his decision). But he drove PAST the sign.
If it's not in the same shot, he is not looking at the sign but towards the road ahead. The mistake is an assumption and has been corrected appropriately.
Indiana Jones is not some experimental, challenging movie, like Fellini Satyricon. It follows standard montage conventions for understandable viewing. Person looks ahead, followed up with a "subjective" shot. It's textbook stuff - it's called the Kuleshov effect ("a mental phenomenon by which viewers derive more meaning from the interaction of two sequential shots"). Also, since they drove past the post, they should then be visible in the second shot.
3rd Mar 2022
Enemy of the State (1998)
Stupidity: When Will Smith and Gene Hackman are running through the railroad yard. Gene calls Will by his real name, "Will" and not by his character's name "Robert."
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You could be a little bit more specific, but I don't hear him say "Will" at any point during that run.
25th Feb 2022
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Continuity mistake: When Harry sees into Voldemort's mind when he is Gregorovitch's wand shop, the wand Voldemort uses is the Elder wand, however Voldemort has not got the Elder wand yet. (01:07:54)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Voldemort is not carrying the Elder wand, but his own wand. You see glimpses of the Elder Wand in the hands of a young Grindelwald though, perhaps you are confusing the scenes.
25th Feb 2022
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Corrected entry: When Marty kicks the amplifier over when onstage at the dance in the first BTTF film the amp was sitting on an upside down Pepsi Cola crate. In BTTF 2 there is no crate then the amp is on the floor.
Correction: At no point in the first movie is the amplifier on a crate.
23rd Feb 2022
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: If you damage a fusion reactor, it doesn't explode with a thermonuclear effect. It just shuts off.
Correction: Actual fusion reactors don't exist, yet. Certainly not this size. You have no idea how this reactor works. It's not unlikely it uses fissile material to operate.
19th Feb 2022
Scream (1996)
Stupidity: Dewey and Sidney jumpscare each other at the front door. There's just no possible logical reason for a deputy (or ANYONE) to be holding the mask the way Dewey is in the scene. If he were leaning against the door, he would have lost his balance or reacted in any way to the door shifting. (00:30:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Perhaps he was going to knock on the door with the mask. And Dewey didn't call out for Sidney.
I am not sure who would almost-but-not-quite knock with his hand wrapped in a mask and holding perfectly still keeping the pose, facing the opposite direction. It's a pose completely unnatural especially looking frozen and not in the middle of something else. (I amended the part about calling out, it was wrongly phrased since I wanted to say the exact opposite, thanks!).
He was about to knock on the door and was then looking behind him, probably heard a noise. He ain't the most solid type either.
I personally think this is a good stupidity entry. The stupidity section exists for stuff that isn't technically mistakes, but is still irksome or just silly. And this fits that. It's good for a quick jump scare, but doesn't really add up. It's a piece of evidence, so he probably wouldn't be touching it anyways, the way he's holding it is completely unnatural (nobody holds a mask they just picked up off the ground like that), and it's conveniently held at exactly the right height and position to be in Sidney's face when she opens the door. The movie was flying in the face of basic logic to manufacture a quick scare. And it's effective in context... but it doesn't really make sense if you dissect the scene.
14th Feb 2022
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Continuity mistake: In addition to the sweatshirt or turtleneck, Ock's wearing the pair of sunglasses he wore for the bank robbery. Impossible as those were broken by Aunt May. He should've had on the other pair he wore late in the movie.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When you think about it, the Doc Ock that shows up both knows who Spider-Man is and is still being controlled by the tentacles. In Spiderman 2 this happens minutes before his death, when he convinces the tentacles to listen to him now. So, he had to have been pulled out during his exchange with Spiderman, which seems highly unlikely. Or, this is an even different Doc Ock that still has that pair of sunglasses and probably found out who Spider-Man was at a different point in time.
14th Feb 2022
Wonder Woman (2017)
Plot hole: How is it possible that Diana is unaware of the concept of marriage? She has a grasp of multiple languages and cultures and can recite Socrates. Socrates often spoke of marriage, so even if her people do not marry, it makes no sense that she is completely unfamiliar with this human custom.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She has never seen a man either. She read about them, but never actually saw one. One might question why she doesn't understand a man if she read about them, and yet she doesn't. Same thing with marriage.
She had never seen a man, but she knew that they existed. She speaks multiple languages, despite never having met someone from any of those cultures. My point is, if she's so well versed in world cultures, how has she never heard of the concept of marriage?
4th Feb 2022
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: The movie takes place in the fall of 1984, but when Dana visits the Ghostbusters for the first time, Janine to kill time is intently reading her copy of People Magazine with Cher on the cover. It's the January 23 issue; it's not an absolute impossibility, but it's obviously a magazine they picked up the day of the shooting (which happened late 1983 to early 1984). (00:21:15)
Correction: I'm sorry, but this is highly far-fetched. No mistake is sight in any way. There is absolutely nothing wrong about someone reading a magazine, new or old.
To add to what the others said, I'll also add that most businesses, doctor's offices, etc. don't usually have new magazines on the magazine rack. They tend to keep old ones around for people to read instead. Weirdly enough, there's actually a reason for it - studies/polls show that places that put out new magazines tend to get most of them stolen. So they purposely just put out whatever old magazines they have lying around. Chances are, that's one of the only magazines they had sitting around the Ghostbusters HQ.
Oh absolutely, as anyone who's been to the doctor's or even the barber shop has experienced (newspapers are usually the daily ones instead, it's cheap and makes sense), but it's not as if there is a waiting room or magazine rack there, and their business freshly opened so it's not a leftover. Again, I personally find the justification of the magazine clashing with the fictional timeline but matching perfectly the one of the shooting less straightforward than the explanation, but of course it's my own view and as I said with full disclosure and honesty in the entry, it's not a complete impossibility. We don't see the whole place so there can be a waiting table somewhere with magazines from 9 months prior that one of the Ghostbusters picked up somewhere and I don't deny it.
So why post it?
This is getting a little redundant but again; simple, it's her desk, there are no other magazines or magazines rack nor a waiting room in a place that just opened for business, and I find more believable by a very good margin that they used whatever magazine they had handy when filming, which happens to be the time when that magazine is from, than thinking that it was a deliberate choice coherent with the fictional world to have her read at her desk a random old thing. I respect the objections I have read so far, but I already weighed them before posting and anyone can make their own judgement on that weighing them differently.
I think you need to look up the word mistake before posting something new. Because it makes completely no sense to post this.
Ah, well, I explained more than abundantly why I thought it relevant to post the objectively verifiable detail with a caveat and I wouldn't randomly do it whenever characters happen to read a magazines in movies - the 'meta' explanation is by far more linear, and I say it as someone who had months-old mags in their backpack when I was a teenager. I respect other people's evaluations and I don't mind if the entry is downvoted based on a disagreement about its relevancy on grounds of not being sufficiently incongruous to be a mistake. I think we can leave it at that and refrain from suggestions on what other people need to do.;).
Sure, I said it all in the entry already. There's no law of nature or man-made that forbids a secretary from bringing at work a 9 months old weekly magazine. I think the real (or less far-fetched, if you will) reason is more than apparent, but do what you want with the information.;).
The fundamental problem is that you yourself said it's not necessarily a mistake... ergo, it's not a mistake. Sure, in a meta context, it probably was just a magazine they picked up before filming... but that doesn't make it a mistake in-movie. There're many reasons why someone might be reading an old magazine, which invalidates the mistake. Case in point, we keep old newspapers and magazines at my house to re-read, because sometimes they have good articles, recipes, etc. It's totally possible and even likely she might be reading an old magazine.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters 'frost' the inside of the Statue of Liberty and are shown dousing it in a rather wasteful, abundant way - with just two backpacks of slime. That's just a comically small amount of produce for such a huge monument. And they even have plenty left for the battle with Vigo. (01:27:30)
Correction: 1. You have no idea how much positive slime they have made 2. You have no idea how much slime is needed to make the statue of liberty come to life. It is only fiction after all, made up by the movie makers, so they are allowed to make the rules. It's not a mistake in the movie, at all.
It is indeed fiction! I am merely saying that with two backpack tanks they 'frost' the inside of a 151 feet tall monument, and they have plenty more to spare. I do admit to not having the technical specs of psychoactive slime and what the recommended usage in public monuments engineering is. On a macroscopic scale, it feels a little off.
Correction: As shown with the toaster, you don't need to completely cover something in slime to animate it. Remember, a small drizzle made the toaster dance. They seem to spray a comparatively scaled-up amount inside of the statue. You also have to factor in the fact that emotions are shown to have an effect on the volume of slime - strong emotions cause more slime to generate. (Which is why there's so much in the first place. We also see this happen during the courtroom scene.) Chances are, the backpacks are constantly being "refueled" by their emotions or the positivity they are generating.
For the 'small drizzle', Ray made sure to pour the thing back and forth through the whole length of the slit, effectively coating its interiors, and they splooge that thing all over the place in, a randomic and wasteful way, which we see before any of it expands because of the goodwill of people - which by the way never happens, at least it's never represented in the shots of the Statue; if at any point they showed the statue bubbling with power, charging because of the positivity or something, we'd never have had the conversation about the museum either. It's not that I missed what the film said, it's just that it's more often than not contradicted by what it is shown.
I literally just loaded up the scene - it was a small drizzle, in no way do they "effectively coat the interior" of the teaser. And how precisely can you say it's a "random and wasteful way"? Do you have personal experience bringing statues to life with slime? At no point does the film contradict itself. It shows early on that a certain volume of slime can bring a small object (the toaster) to life, and then pays it off later with a larger object. (The statue). Also, they do indeed show energy flowing through the slime in the statue when the music starts... you literally see like bolts/electricity/energy moving through it.
The 'energy' part was referred to the properties of the slime to increase in volume and such, you don't see that going on even in the scene when it flashes activating because of the music. I haven't had experience bringing statues to life with slime (at most applying gels in cove joints), but I had experience talking with other people about the movie, and we all laughed at the fact that they had a seemingly unlimited amount of slime, but hey, you can always meet other people with a different view and it was just my little bubble.
TedSixton makes an excellent point that I forgot, the slime increases in volume when more positive energy is added. You can go many ways with this theory, even so philosophical as to say the statue of liberty is such a positive symbol that the slime that was sprayed on it started to grow immediately simply because of what the statue of liberty represents or perhaps in a way has already gathered all positive energy of the city into itself, which is why it came to life. Not a mistake in any case.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters can get inside the museum when the Statue of Liberty breaks the museum's ceiling light. Good, but the whole museum was surrounded by a shell of slime that extended above it too. The Ghostbusters do nothing to open a hole in the slime, nor they could know it would open, and the Statue has nothing to do with it. (01:31:45)
Correction: I think you somehow completely missed the point of them bringing in the statue in the first place. They animate the statue and walk it through the streets to act as a symbol to bring out the positive emotions/good vibes of the people. The positivity weakens the negatively-fueled slime shell enough for them to get inside. They quite literally show people cheering in the streets and the slime "retreating" from the ceiling windows as a result. Watch this clip, it explains their plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2wtteHUGjg.
Correction: The positive slime caused the negative slime to retreat. You can see this happening when the statue bends over the museum.
As I said, they do nothing to open a hole, it just happens; the Statue is close to a whole side of the museum that is covered in goop, but does not distance itself from it. Does it react to the music speakers? To the torch's warmth? It's just random stuff that happens. Which is totally fine in a movie like this, but does not prevent from noting it. However, since the whole idea of using the statue comes to them because they need to 'crack' the barrier, I'd say you are right there; they didn't know how and if it would work perhaps, but the idea IS set up. I still think the visual representation of it is inconsistent, since I don't get why the hole would open in that area of all areas.
I didn't think it had anything to do with touching the negative slime first. The negative slime was weakened by the positive emotions of the crowd, and their positive emotions came from seeing the Statue and Ghostbusters coming down the street, and the statue came to life with the positive slime and music. In the weakened state, the negative slime started to retract without the Ghostbusters needing to do anything else. They would have seen the ceiling being uncovered and then broke in that way.
Yup, Bishop73 got it 100% correct. They state in the movie that they need a symbol to bring out the positivity to get through the slime, and the movie shows the slime retreating after the crowds outside cheer for them in the statue. (Not sure where lionhead got the idea that it was the positive slime that did it, since the movie does not indicate that at all).
Positive feedback here. It shows the positive slime is more powerful than the negative slime. That's why they hose Janosz, Ray and Vigo in the end with the positive slime. It thinks all together the positive energy of the crowd caused the positive slime to grow and become even more powerful and the negative slime to retreat. That's how I always interpreted it at least. But you can go several ways here. In any case, it's not random.
Ah I see! You see sufficient visual correlation between the crowd cheering and the slime retracting, I don't see that, so the fact that the slime opens up freeing the skylight doesn't feel visually correlated with the 'mobilization of positive energy' thingy. Later it 'weakens' reacting in a different manner.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The whole plan of the Ghostbusters relies on the fact that the Statue of Liberty, being the symbol that it is, will rally the population of New York drawing their positive energies out. Forgetting the fact that a giant statue trampling things in the middle of the city is quite likely to inspire negativity, let's go with the movie's theory; it's not what it is shown. The people start singing, disturbing Vigo, at a random moment that has nothing to do with the statue showing up and in fact happens when it is already just lying on the ground.
Correction: Did you somehow miss all the shots of the people cheering as the statue walks through the streets? Watch this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpyvDWfK9qs They literally show the crowds cheering as the statue walks through the streets, thus supplying the positive energy the Ghostbusters need. The moment you're referring to where they start singing does indeed happen later, but it's a different scene entirely. Maybe you watched an edited version of the movie or something? Because they definitely show the statue bringing out the positivity in the crowds in every version I've ever seen.
Oh dear, no, I don't watch edited down versions if possible, especially when I submit the timecodes. If you watch the video you yourself posted -but I hope you didn't, since it's edited down and misses the one moment when you actually see the slime move from a single spot-, you'll see that not the statue nor the crowd cause the slime mass to move or do anything. So the statue brings the positivity out in the crowd at its best only when it's limp on the ground, just as I said.
After the slime starts to retract, it cuts to a wide-shot showing crowds outside cheering. It makes perfect sense that the closer the statue gets to the slime (therefore bringing the positive energy closer), and the more the crowd cheers them on, the weaker the slime shell gets. Hence, it starts to retract. I don't understand what the issue you're having is. No offense, but it just seems like you're trying to manufacture a mistake where there is none.
Manufacturing mistakes would be a terribly inefficient way to spend time when in the same time you can spot dozens others. We simply get a different vibe from the scene, and the representation works better for you (and other commentators) than for me. It's a fictitious shell and if you tell me that the fact that it parts from that one skylight makes sense because it's weakened, I honestly at this point I don't mind, I wrote "I stand corrected" to the main issue like 4-5 comments ago.;).
Correction: They brought the statue with them to break the slime around the museum, not to rally the people. It was covered in positive slime, which caused it to come to life, like the toaster. It's presence, and the positive slime, had a positive effect on the people around it. It lying on the street helps the positive slime affect the people around it. Just like the negative slime affecting the guys when they come out of the sewer. Apparently it doesn't need to be physically touched.
If the statue lying lifeless in the street were meant to influence people, there'd be any visual representation of it, my main problem with all of this is that they show nothing about the statue 'charging' or 'focusing' the power of positivity. However, you do have a point; the main goal was to break into the museum, after all, and the people chanting to save the day were not part of the plan, so I shouldn't nitpick that. The plan still makes no sense because it's scary as hell to have a metal giant roam the street crushing cars, and we have to fill a lot of blanks, but we can embrace the cheesy spirit of it. I stand corrected.
15th Nov 2021
Eternals (2021)
Corrected entry: Spoiler; Ajak and 'the true villain' are the only ones who know the true nature of the mission and the fact that the Earth will cease to exist in 7 days. None of her fellow Eternals would know where to find her or suspect that she's dead or that anything is wrong, but the villain makes them find her body on purpose to provide a distraction to keep them busy investigating her death. Provide a 'distraction' to someone who is completely unsuspecting (and actively lead them) is pure nonsense.
Correction: He explains this plainly. He knows that when the earth is being destroyed they would go to Ajak for help, Since she is dead however they will know something is wrong and will investigate the emergence. But if it was a Deviant, they will be distracted killing them to not know about the emergence before it is too late. At least, that is what he had hoped.
"When the others realise something is happening to the Earth, they'll come to you. When they find your body, they'll know the Deviants are back. It'll keep them busy during the Emergence." It makes absolutely no sense. During the movie, none of them cares about what is happening to the planet. There's no such sense of urgency. He does all that to "keep busy" people who never met in centuries and never interfered to any world-threatening phenomenon.None of them knows about the Emergence.If they didn't find her at home, they wouldn't even know she was dead and that would have only delayed them further. He needs to stall them just for a couple days, not years.
He also said he suspected that Ajak would change her mind and betray Arishem. If he hasn't killed her, she would have tried to recruit the others to stop the Emergence. The Deviants had already escaped the ice, he just lured them together to kill Ajak. His plan kind of went sideways since the group was to find her dead and seek out the Deviants, but the Deviants already attacked them. Plus, had Sersi not learned their true mission, they would be too busy to stop the Emergence.
Killing Ajak is the logical part. Hauling her body across the continent so the others will find it is the absurd part. Why having killed the only person who was a threat to his plan would he build a murder mystery about it? He had already won. If they didn't find Ajak at home, assuming they'd bother to go there to begin with, they would have waited for her, at most looked for her presumably in vain, and wasted time. Why stir anything?
He stirs to keep them distracted, hoping they would not investigate the earthquakes for one thing, and then the sudden giant volcano for another. He knows they are attached to the Earth and it's people, would try to safe them. He tried to convince them it were the Deviants, not something else. Unfortunately for him, Sersi became their leader, whilst he expected it to be him.
Even if they would figure out on their own that 'something was happening' (and they didn't), they didn't have the faintest idea about the dormant Celestial business. Deviants are literally the only thing that would bring them together and back to action (not even that, Gil just butchers one and does not give a damn). Ikaris states matter-of-factly that he needed to do things and certain stuff would happen only because he needs to make the movie happen. They were all 'busy' already, leading their boring lives, and they had completely insufficient data to react, especially if he didn't spoon-feed them that it was something connected to them to begin with.
The Deviants did come back, after dormant in the ice. That's what brings them together, that's why Ikarus killed Ajak, that's why he needed to distract them from her death. It's not that difficult to understand. You're just not seeing the connection.
I am simply not seeing connections that don't exist. The Deviants are not "why" he killed Ajak at all; he kills her because she wants to stop the Emergence. The Deviants are just a distraction (which is a misleading term, for the reasons I underlined in the original post, but let's go with that). They are a weak colony stranded in Alaska and unable to do any substantial damage that got free a week before; It will be Ajak's power that causes them to be able to be on the radar again and changes their target from humans to Eternals (which is something they never did before and he couldn't have anticipated).
I didn't say he killed Ajak because of the deviants. He killed Ajak because the deviants would cause the Eternals to come together again, they will come to Ajak (or she to them) and she will tell them about the emergence. So, he kills Ajak but once they encounter the Deviants again and Ajak is missing, they will start to investigate and perhaps find out about the emergence. So, he puts her body to be found, so they will focus on the deviants. Alright?
No, the others wouldn't come to Ajak (or vice versa, she didn't even know about them) because of the Deviants. The Deviants aren't back, there's just half a dozen harmless leftovers that got thawed out and that he 'feeds' (it's never said or implied that he knew that they'd become stronger and Eternal-murders, too). The others may go ask Ajak for an opinion because of the strange earthquake - and you never see a sense of urgency in this movie. This guy goes out of his way to ring a giant alarm bell, so he can tell a fake story to people who haven't been in touch in ages and may have some mild curiosity about something that does not involve them as far as they know, since they don't know about Emergence or any of that stuff.
16th Nov 2021
Eternals (2021)
Plot hole: Deviants were created to get rid of dangerous local predators allowing intelligent life to thrive on the planets Arishem 'seeded'. He then created the Eternals to get rid of the Deviants once he realised they eat the species they should have protected. Problem is, it is stated that the Eternals go through their extermination routine multiple times. But the 'mistake' can't be happening all over again in a cycle, and Deviants would ruin a planet if left unattended.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Arisham made them both part of the cycle to get the planet to be filled with intelligent life. So he always introduces Deviants before Eternals. It's a good way for him to tell the Eternals they are there to protect the intelligent life against the Deviants without knowing their true purpose. To keep them busy.
He refers to the introduction of Eternals as something he did "to correct my mistake." By that definition, he keeps making the same mistake over and over. If he just told them that they have to protect humanity and help their progress, he would obtain the same purpose. After all, for 500 years without Deviants the Eternals stayed put and passive as instructed and didn't create any particular trouble -if they did, they are a limited number he can easily pluck them out of the planet much more easily than a non-specified amount of ever-evolving beasts that he admits are out of his control and can grow much more powerful if they manage to kill Eternals.
He is lying. They are not a mistake, and they are not beyond his control. That's one of the main reasons why they go against Arishem in the first place, because everything is a lie, even after learning their true purpose. The Deviants are there to give the Eternals purpose, helping the intelligent life on the planet flourish, in the most natural way, for reasons we can only guess. The Deviant is upset too, learning the truth that they are only put on the planet for the Eternals to kill.
14th Jan 2022
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Stupidity: Why in the world would Tony of all people leave his old suits in storage WITH the miniature arc reactor still inside the suit? This would have served no purpose to Tony since he already has his own arc reactor in his body.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is a question which is easily answered; Tony had the idea of putting someone else in the suit (like Rhodey) himself. Plus, it's logical to think he has built multiple miniature arc reactors, after the events of the previous movie. Plus, he can probably just as easily switch from arc reactor to arc reactor in his chest when changing suits, so he has a fully powered arc reactor ready in each suit.
23rd Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Other mistake: Sandman AKA Flint Marko is the first of the villains to be changed back at the Statue of Liberty fight, and he is told by Peter to stay inside the head to be safe. Seconds later Electro discharges a massive electric surge onto the statue head, which is made of bronze, which is a good electric conductor. Marko should not have survived that. (01:47:40 - 01:48:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's made of a good conductor that would protect him like a faraday cage if anything. (Almost) all the energy would go through the metal, not the less conductive person.
A faraday cage is very sophisticated, calculated, engineering to block electromagnetic fields. You can't accidentally have a faraday cage.
23rd Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Plot hole: Strange says he can't turn back time any more since he does not have the Time stone, so he'll resort to "a standard spell of forgetting." The statement is already quite odd since even with the stone he never showed anything close to the ability to revert time on a global scale for the WEEKS it would take to get back to that moment. But no worries; the "standard spell" is in fact more powerful than the Time stone; for it to work, it can't just make the people forget, or else people would learn back about Peter from the gigabytes of pictures and stories published, the Daily Bugle's archives, Flash's published book, T-shirts etc.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He didn't understand the workings of the time stone as well as he did other spells. The time stone is definitely more powerful, able to trap an omnipotent cosmic being in a time loop. The spell focusses on 1 person's secret identity being forgotten from memory, hardly more powerful than what the time stone can do. In any case, the difference in power is not important to the plot.
The Time Stone in movies always focuses around limited areas, including Dormammu, with Strange concentrating during the activation. It's also a unique artifact and the most powerful in the universe. This is a "forgetfulness spell", but it needs to alter reality (physical evidence) to work, or it's useless, and it's a "standard spell" according to Strange. Was he downplaying it? Let's say he was; it's still a 'fire and forget' sort of deal that alters reality years back.
Suggested correction: I wouldn't say that a spell making everyone in the world forget about Peter is more powerful than the time stone. Memory loss is something that happens regularly (and pretty easily, T.B.H.) to people as a result of anything from illness to a bad bonk on the head. Therefore, it doesn't seem like it'd be something that'd be hard for a wizard to do. He's just applying that to a global scale, which doesn't seem like it'd be impossible if it is indeed a basic spell. As for evidence of Peter, it's really not hard to use conjecture to assume he also made evidence of Peter vanish from existence as part of the spell... making things disappear is a very basic wizardry/magician trick. Heck, it's basically a cliche.
I don't get the logic, sorry. It is easy to do it with a person, therefore it's also doable on a global scale? It's easy for a wizard to move a rock, then by that logic it'd be not that hard to move every rock? Instantly? And since it does that but also makes every physical evidence of it vanish, it is not a spell of forgetting. It has to restructure time and space on a massive scale in a very precise way, and here it is trivalized because the movie does not address the consequences (you will see proposed corrections of this entry that assume it changed nothing physical and it's just no biggie). For instance in the latest Strange movie, there's a magic item that is more powerful than any Infinity stone, but it's not something any wizard can access. The fact that a clichè exists (it's not like I haven't read One More Day, for instance) doesn't mean it fits every context (it's not quite the same doing it in the Tooth Fairy movie and here).
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that making people forget about something and making some stuff disappear restructures time and space. The film explicitly states that it doesn't - Strange says the spell "won't turn back time." It just makes people forget. (And presumably makes evidence disappear.) There's even a joke in the movie where Strange implies he uses the spell regularly, including an instance where he used it to make Wong forget about a party. Doesn't mean the party didn't happen. Just means Wong doesn't remember it. It seems like you're really over-reading and over-complicating the spell in your head. Forgetting about something (or making some books and computer files vanish) does not necessitate the rewriting of space and time... it just means people forgot and things disappeared. If I forgot about something, and the only piece of evidence vanished, to me, it basically never happened. Doesn't mean history was necessarily re-written.
The boundaries of what constitutes "over-reading" and "over-complicating" are subjective; to me saying "it's a basic spell of forgetting", castable on a whim, for something that necessarily has also to act globally if not universally (Nick Fury is not on this planet and he would forget, most likely) and does not 'merely' affect minds but a plurality of records and physical items dating back over a decade (remember we talk about the whole life of Peter Parker here, not just his association with Spider-man), is over-simplifying on top of misrepresenting. One of the writers answered on the subject by saying they have an answer to that they are not at liberty to reveal currently. We'll see if that is true, (or will just be ignored and dumped on the Sony writers who already spectacularly got it wrong in Morbius); the MCU is not just one movie, and Strange in the previous movies never showed the ability to change the universe deleting selectively parts of it with a 'standard spell'.
I think I can get where you're coming from with this. I just personally didn't see it as that big an issue. I think it's probably just an agree to disagree situation. Sorry if I came across as rude.
Suggested correction: Even if we assume the video footage of people saying that Peter is Spidey still exist, this wouldn't matter much. If anybody saw a video of themselves recorded a week ago saying something that they never remembered saying, they would laugh it off and assume it was some "Deepfake" or something.
Besides the fact that I would sue whatever media outlet published my deepfake and most certainly not laugh it off, if there's no magical alteration of reality/space/time to make that spell work, it would be entirely useless. Anyone could just type "Who is Spider-Man" on google and find out from a million sources.
18th Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Plot hole: The whole premise of the movie is that due to a botched spell, people who happen to know that "Peter Parker is Spider-Man" are pulled inside this universe. It's a bit of a stretch already that amongst those people is...Peter Parker himself, twice over, but let's say it makes sense. The problem is that Jamie Foxx's Electro does not meet this condition; he never found out. You could say it's a retcon or it's a different universe from the original movie's, but even this cop-out explanation is negated by the movie itself when Max Dillon makes a joke that shows that he didn't know Spidey's identity or even race.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Although Max didn't discover Peter's identity on film, an explanation of why Max knows his name IS offered. When the villains are talking about what happened before they found themselves in the MCU, Max indicated that once he tapped fully into the power grid and information systems, there was nothing he didn't know at that point. Since we know there is a clandestine organization tracking Peter from the end of ASM1, it's possible Max gained the info from their database.
In the interest of clarity, you refer to the one line that goes "I was stuck in the grid, absorbing data."? Nothing about tapping fully, and becoming omniscient as the correction presents. So we have to give it that specific meaning and make a connection to the obscure postcredit scene by Fiers in the unfinished trilogy that asks Connors if he said anything to the boy imagining that it produced data that was 'on the grid' somehow, and Electro never processed this information in the movie. Not sure if it's quite an"explanation offered", since the movie offers none. It's a 'possible' explanation like the other one people use, about hearing Gwen say Peter's name (I like this one better because at least it would give a special meaning to a throwaway line and I do I love attention to details).
Suggested correction: I don't find it such a stretch that he knew Peter's name but didn't know what he looked like.
When Spider-Man is explaining his plan to defeat Electro to Gwen, Gwen addresses him as "Peter." Electro was laying on the ground nearby and likely would have heard this. Presumably, knowing that Spidey's real name was Peter was enough to pull him in.
There are almost 10,000 "Peter" in New York alone in our world. Knowing just the super-common first name wouldn't cut it and the movie does nothing to support this theory, in fact does everything to undermine it (Strange's explanation, Electro's joke, complete lack of addressing it, etc). Also if he overheard that bit in the original movie, he would have also learned their plans to defeat him.
Suggested correction: I guess we're all going to ignore the fact that this Electro has a completely different look than the Max we saw previously. It's quite possible he's from a different universe.
He's not from a different universe than the Electro from The Amazing Spider-Man 2. The Lizard and the Andrew Garfield version of Spider-Man both know who he is, and he talks about events from the aforementioned film. His different appearance is also explained in the film.
All that means is he went through similar experiences and has a similar appearance as the Max they knew. Ala J. Jonah Jameson.
Suggested correction: It's not people who know who is Spider-Man that are spilling in, it's people who are connected to him in any way.
No, no. Strange says it explicitly "That little spell you botched, when you wanted everyone to forget that Peter Parker is Spider-man? It started pulling in everyone who knows that Peter Parker is Spider-man" and so on. That's why in the end they fix it by making everyone forget who Peter Parker is, not who Spider-man is.
21st Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Plot hole: The original "Make everyone forget that Spider-man is Peter Parker except..." spell went horribly wrong and Strange at the end of the movie is struggling to prevent a complete collapse of reality because people from the whole multiverse who fit the exception shoehorned by Peter have been drawn to this reality. Strange then does a new spell that supersedes the other by making everyone forget Peter Parker, period. The problem is, by that logic everyone would forget who Peter is also in all those universes involved and so Maguire and Garfield's life are likewise ruined and one wonders if they are even allowed to remember their own name (after all, the initial spell did affect them, so the radical undoing of it should too).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is no indication that Strange's spell works on the multiverse. I'd say that is a bit of a stretch. The spell was focussed on MCU's spiderman, and him being forgotten fixed the multiverse (temporarily probably). The initial spell was flawed and broke down the multiverse barriers, causing other universes to spill in. The new spell fixed that, not change those universes.
I came here because I had realised the exact same thing Sammo had. The villains are not there because they know who MCU-Peter is, they are there because they know that Peter is Spider-Man in their universe. The first spell is still active, the second spell adjusts the consequences of it, because why else would the second spell send them back? The only way the villains can vanish is if they forget who Peter is in their universe as well, which means the other two Spideys are in the same situation.
The spilled over Spider-Men and villains can vanish because the second spell restores the flaws of the first spell, which caused the barriers of reality to come down. With the flaw restored, everything that spilled over is returned automatically. Not because they too don't know who Spider-Man is now, but because reality is restored.
That's not really the way they presented it in the movie. The second spell is "Make everyone forget who Peter Parker is." If it works the way you say, wouldn't they have been able to accomplish the same with a spell with less severe consequences, like "make everyone forget my middle name"?
MCU's Peter Parker, because MCU's Spider-Man is not forgotten. My point was that since the spell failure DID affect people from the whole multiverse, "everyone who know that Peter Parker is Spider-man" even when it's not THEIR Peter Parker, why would the fix (which happens when the beings have already broken in) be a selective one on a specific Peter? Happy if they address it in one of the next movies.
The first spell was also focussed on the MCU's Peter Parker but the failure caused tears in the multiverse and caused people to spill in, the spell didn't directly affect them. The fix was again specifically aimed at the MCU's Peter Parker, to supersede the failed spell and cause the tears to heal and the spilled over people to return. This one did work and thus only the MCU was affected whilst the others were returned (still with memories from changes by MCU's Peter).
As I said, hard to say it "didn't directly affect" those people when they were sucked into a different universe against their will, and they were because they had one peculiar trait the movie keeps hammering in; knowing that Peter Parker, any Peter, is Spider-man. It's the characters that use it in the exposition and then in the resolution, with two different meanings that don't match.
It was stated near the beginning that the spell went out of hand because it was changed six times mid-spell. Changing a spell while it's in the middle of being cast causes the spell to go berserk. The spell cast at the end is not changed mid-cast, so it was more controlled than the old spell.
If he just needed to cast properly, he could have casted it again in a more controlled way, but he cannot since "they're here." So it is a different spell, but if the condition "being Peter Parker" was not sufficiently clear the first time around (and Peter even interrupted the spell saying "everyone who knew that *I* was Spider-man before", not "everyone who knows Peter Parker is Spider-man"), there's no reason why it should be now.As I said, I'm pointing out that the meaning keeps shifting.
Suggested correction: That this was only limited to the MCU universe is a given because extending it to every possible universe is an impossible plot element to put into the story, for one simple reason: Our universe is officially part of the Marvel multiverse, and if the memory alteration extended to every universe, then we (the audience) would no longer remember Peter either.
Correction: Yes, it does. And the wavery effect in the middle of the shot is meant to be a translation so that viewers can understand where Indy is driving to.
Guy
What wavery effect? Not sure if joke or false memory. Still, stuff being in English for the benefit of the viewer isn't necessarily a mistake. In fact, the previous shot was of the other side of the sign.
Spiny Norman