lionhead

28th Dec 2020

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Other mistake: Fireworks use heated metals to produce the various colors seen when they explode - Iron, Nickel, Cryolite, magnesium and copper filings. Flying a jet engine through exploding fireworks would cause serious damage to the engine.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Diana had conjured an invisibility shield around the jet that would likely protect it from the fireworks.

raywest

Agreed, the spell does obviously do more than just make the plane invisible. When looking at the invisibility of Themyscira, the spell obviously filters out the atmosphere and only can't keep out solid objects like planes and ships.

lionhead

If the cloak of invisibility "filters out the atmosphere", how is the air needed to run the engines getting in?

It filters the atmosphere, not keep it away. So it keeps the atmosphere that comes in clean.

lionhead

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.

Rob245

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.

Bishop73

Still doesn't explain why they are green in the flashback. Lynda Carter has blue eyes. Probably caused by a color filter.

lionhead

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).

Bishop73

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)

Sammo

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.

lionhead

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!"

Sammo

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.

lionhead

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).

Sammo

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)

Sammo

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.

lionhead

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?

Sammo

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.

Bishop73

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.

Sammo

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.

Bishop73

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.

Sammo

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).

Bishop73

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.

Sammo

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.

lionhead

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.

Sammo

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).

Bishop73

"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.

Sammo

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.

lionhead

Most people would have wished the nukes to disappear pretty instantly especially with the world falling into chaos and everyone panicking about it.

Sammo

And others would have wished for them to hit and kill the "heathens" or "hateful." Cancellation.

lionhead

They do not get their wishes that way. They should show the missiles disappearing, then appearing, disappearing, reappearing to portray the conflicting desires. Nobody ever wishes for a good thing in this movie tho.;).

Sammo

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)

Sammo

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.

lionhead

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.

Sammo

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.

lionhead

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.

Sammo

I agree with Sammo. It's a character mistake.

raywest

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)

Sammo

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.

lionhead

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.

Sammo

Before she does the invisibility trick Steve hasn't put on the full throttle yet.

lionhead

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)

Sammo

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.

lionhead

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.

Sammo

She doesn't say it in the version of the movie I have. Not at that timestamp anyway.

lionhead

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.

Sammo

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.

lionhead

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)

Charles Austin Miller

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.

lionhead

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.

Charles Austin Miller

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.

lionhead

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).

Charles Austin Miller

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.