Factual error: Vers hit Earth at night in California. Dawn comes, and the Skrulls are coming out of the surf with the sun low on the horizon. The sun rises in the east, not over the ocean.
Phaneron
19th Jul 2019
Captain Marvel (2019)
4th Dec 2019
Spider-Man (1994)
Neogenic Nightmare Chapter 11: Tablet of Time - S2-E9
Factual error: When Peter is walking Alissa home, the traffic signal at the intersection they stop at goes from red to yellow to green. Not what US traffic signals do - they go straight from red to green.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not entirely true; although they are rare and may no longer exist now, I've seen traffic lights that followed the red, yellow, green pattern as recently as the mid-1990s.
Interesting. What state (s) did you see this in? I'm assuming going from red to yellow was to encourage cars to cautiously enter the intersection in case someone was running a red light?
Traffic lights in the UK do this - it's more to give you a second to get ready, in gear, etc., then as soon as the lights turn green you can go. Otherwise you get no warning of when the lights are about to change.
In Illinois; as I said, such traffic lights are rare, but they did exist at least as recently as the time this episode of the series aired, and they may still possibly exist in larger cities such as New York City.
This traffic light set-up (red to yellow to green) still exists today in the UK. From what I understand, it is to alert the driver that the light will be turning green imminently and to prepare themselves to put their car in gear, as manual cars are still pretty common in Europe. I'd wager this light cycle was phased out of North America due to the abundance of automatic cars today. Could have been different in 1994 though.
It should be noted that traffic lights that go from red to yellow before going green keep the red light illuminated so that both red and yellow are lit up. However, that's not what happens in the scene. I've never seen a traffic light operate the way it's shown. And Massachusetts still has traffic lights that go from red to yellow, however, when red and yellow are lit up together, this allows for pedestrian crossing.
18th Oct 2006
The Departed (2006)
Corrected entry: When Costello's hooligans drive away from 344 Wash after the shoot-out, Queenan's body on the ground is quite obviously a dummy.
Correction: Too vague. What makes it so obvious that it is a dummy?
They ran over it.
And? We know they aren't going to run over the actor for real, so a dummy has to be used. That would be like saying the blood squibs and blanks from guns are obvious because the actors weren't really shot. Putting aside filmmaking techniques, what stands out from the dummy that in the context of verisimilitude, it's distinguishable from a dead body?
9th Feb 2004
The Ring (2002)
Question: When does Rachel realise if she shows the film to someone else she won't die? And if she knew, is that why she showed it to Noah, to kill him on purpose?
Answer: At the end of the movie, she is crying about why she wasn't killed and Noah was. She vocalizes "What did I do, that he didn't?" That's when she sees the copy she made. It wasn't that she just showed it to someone else. She made a copy and Aiden watched that copy. Aiden is why it skipped her.
Almost right. It's just the copy. Copying the video makes it skip you. That's why she has Aiden make a copy as well.
You have to show the copy to someone else as well. That's why Aiden asks Rachel at the very end "What about the person we show it to? What happens to them?"
But doesn't he have less than a day left by then? Hardly a time to relax, they need to make a terrible decision, quickly. I always had the idea making a copy was enough because of that.
He watched the tape the morning of either Rachel's 4th or 5th day, so he should have at least 3 days left by this point. Though it appears the film was being inconsistent with the markings that Samara leaves on the tape's viewers, since Rachel noticed Samara's hand print on Aiden's arm and then his nose started bleeding. For Rachel, she got her nosebleed before receiving the mark on her arm.
Actually, you need to do both: make a copy and show it to someone else. This is further explained in The Ring 2. At the beginning, the guy had made a copy but since the girl covered her eyes and didn't watch the whole thing, he was still killed by Samara. So making a copy is not enough in itself to be spared if no-one else watches it. The same goes for Rachel. She made a copy on the 2nd day, but Becca tells her she only has 4 days left when she visits the psych ward indicating she hadn't been spared yet. It's only after Aidan watches the copy she made that death skips her for good.
Answer: No, it's wrong. Just making a copy won't save you; you need to show it to someone else, and then this someone else is cursed instead of you. The Japanese movie explains it well. Plus, in the official second movie, a man dies from Samara after making the copy because nobody watched it. Also, at the end of the 1st movie, Aiden asks from the copy, "What will happen to the one who will watch it?"
30th Aug 2019
Dark Phoenix (2019)
Corrected entry: In the labs, the Beast is looking at colour LCD monitors, they weren't available in 1992.
Correction: They weren't available in the real world in 1992. This is science fiction though, and there are mutants both in the films and the comics they are based on that are extremely intelligent and innovative. The character Forge for example, who does not appear in the films but may exist offscreen, has the mutant ability to basically invent anything. Beast is also intelligent enough to invent LCD screens a lot sooner than we had them. He did create Cerebro in the early 1960's after all, which is a piece of technology that we in the real world to this day do not possess.
Next to that the first LCD screens came at the end of the 80's though in low quality and small. By 1992 they were very expensive but a lot better. The actual invention of the LCD technology was as far back as the 1960's.
Agreed that the Beast had the smarts to develop LCD screens but the story should be based on reality. For example if the Beast had pulled out an iPhone, it wouldn't fit the narrative, but the Beast would easily be able to construct such a device should he wish to.
Why should the story be based on reality? The movie doesn't take place in the real world. Should the president in the movie be George Bush since that would have reflected reality? The LCD monitors serve a purpose for the scene. While it technically wouldn't have been a mistake for Beast to have in invented one, an iPhone wouldn't serve any purpose for any of the scenes in the movie.
16th Nov 2018
Walk the Line (2005)
Corrected entry: Roy Orbison in the 50s is playing barre chords on his guitar which were not invented then.
Correction: Barre chords have been around for centuries.
12th Oct 2019
Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)
Stupidity: When Joey is trying to escape from the Cenobites, she bumps into a man who calls her "Baby" and wonders where she's off to in such a hurry, possibly because he's looking for a booty call. The streets are literally on fire (there's a huge flame right next to the man) and buildings are exploding. Even if he's extremely horny, he should still be able to tell a woman doesn't want to stay around with so much chaos and destruction happening around them.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The dude was probably high on various types of drugs and probably didn't even know where he was. Just a thought.
Too high to recognize buildings exploding and fires bursting from out of nowhere, but not too high to recognize a woman in distress?
He didn't recognize much did he? Well, he saw she was female. But not really what was going on.
He recognized she was off somewhere in a hurry. He also had a pretty instant reaction to seeing the Camerahead Cenobite.
25th Sep 2019
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Question: What would have been the legal status of Widow Winship's unborn baby if the Horseman hadn't killed her or the baby?
Answer: Van Garrett amended his will naming the widow Winship as his beneficiary, so had the child been born, she likely would have been the heir apparent of the widow.
But, what would the legal status of the baby be?
They were married in secret before they were killed, so the baby would have been legitimate.
Legal as in what? If she's born on U.S. soil and her mother lives as well, then she's a protected citizen entitled to her father's name and whatever rights a female would have been granted by the U.S. Constitution at the time. If the mother dies, she presumably becomes a ward of the state until someone adopts her.
16th Jul 2018
Sunshine (2007)
Question: The captain of the first Icarus is insane, burned worse than Freddy Krueger, and his crew has been dead conceivably for 7 years. How is he even alive still without medical care, let alone able to attack and murder members of the second Icarus crew? Insanity doesn't bar one from infection or organ failure.
Answer: Actually, there is a perfectly logical explanation for Pinbacker being on the Icarus II: he went through the airlock while the team was searching the ship and sabotaged the connection from there.
Answer: It is implied that Pinbacker's dedication to his mission to destroy humanity allows him to ignore his injuries. It must also be pointed out that Pinbacker was intentionally designed by director Danny Boyle to break the "realism" of the film. His survival is intended to be almost supernatural. Note that there is no possible way Pinbacker could have made it from Icarus I to Icarus II, but he does somehow and it's never explained.
5th Sep 2019
Common mistakes
Corrected entry: Whenever a character comes home at night to their house or apartment, every single light has been left on.
Correction: I wouldn't really call this a mistake. Especially depending on the area they live. Often times people leave their lights on when they are away to make it appear that people are still home so it's less likely they get broken into and robbed.
Agreed. My family frequently left lights and/or the TV on when we were away when I was growing up.
Yes, leaving lights on in your home when you're away is normal, but it seems that every single light in every room is a common occurrence in movies and TV shows.
Could you give some examples? I don't remember ever seeing this happen. It certainly doesn't happen every time.
24th Feb 2019
Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)
Question: After Peter yells at Kevin "You spent $967 on room service?!", where does Kevin run off to? It's not clear from what's onscreen.
Answer: He's heading back to the hotel most likely to apologize for spending such a huge amount.
Answer: It's Kevin's dad who screams out. You can tell because Buzz looks at the bill, smirks, and says, "Oh, Dad." I've always interpreted it as Kevin running away. The joke is that Kevin's dad screams so loud from the hotel room that Kevin can hear him from the park. So Kevin wouldn't want to face his dad.
24th Jul 2019
Midsommar (2019)
Question: Spoilers: When Simon's corpse is discovered flayed apart and hanging, it looked like some of the organs suspended above him (possibly his lungs?) were still moving a bit. Was he still alive at that moment?
Answer: Yes, that is the impression that is given. He is still alive.
4th Oct 2013
Saw (2004)
Question: What went down the drain in the bathtub?
Chosen answer: The key to Adam's chains. Jigsaw tells him this before locking him in the room at the end. Amanda was supposed to put it around his neck, rather than just throwing it on his chest.
Where exactly have you got that from that she was supposed to put it around his neck? Is it said in one of the films?
I don't recall where I read or learned that, unfortunately. It's definitely not said in "Saw III" in the flashback scene that shows Jigsaw and Amanda prepping Adam and Dr. Gordon's trap, so it might be on the film's commentary track or the director or writers might have said it in an interview.
Since Amanda was helping Jigsaw, he might have told her to put it around Adam's neck.
It must have been said in a later sequel if nothing was mentioned in this one, as a lot of people have repeated the same scenario throughout this thread.
19th Aug 2019
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Back in 1885 why doesn't Doc change the letter he sent to Marty, asking him to bring a can of gas?
Answer: When Marty received the letter from Doc in 1955, as seen in the second movie, Doc wrote down that he didn't want Marty to go to 1885 to rescue him because he was happy living in the past. Instead, he wanted Marty to take the Delorean straight back to 1985 and then destroy it so it could never be used for personal gain again.
But once Marty appears in the past Doc could easily change the letter, changing things such that Marty would bring gas with him.
Answer: This would create a different timeline, not the timeline they are in.
Answer: That would not be possible as in 1885, Doc sent the letter on September 1st, and 1955 Doc sent Marty to 1885 on September 2nd so it was a day later and on the 1st, Doc was not expecting Marty to turn up. However, one CAN ask why Marty and Doc didn't go to the local Western Union office and change it (or write a new one) there since it was in their possession per the gentleman in part 2.
Changing the letter while Marty is in 1885 with Doc would accomplish nothing, because it doesn't it instantly travel to the future. Marty at the end of Part II, for his part, may receive the letter almost immediately, but the letter itself had to wait 70 years to be delivered to him.
I mean, there's no solid rules to time traveling, but just for argument's sake it seems like the letter idea could work... in the franchise, when something is set in motion, the effects usually take place immediately. Take for instance when George and Lorraine kissed at the dance in Part 1. The picture of Marty and his siblings went right back to normal, even though the kids had not been born yet. Doc and Marty changing the Western Union letter "could" have had an immediate effect and a gas can could have materialized in the Delorean, much like we've seen newspaper headlines change before our very eyes, disappearing gravestones, etc.
In your examples, the changes occur to future events. The items that changes, like the picture and newspaper, are from the future themselves. They can't change the past by changing events in the future (like they do in Bill and Ted's). This is why Doc and Marty couldn't go back to 2015 to stop old Biff from taking the DeLorean.
30th May 2017
Better Call Saul (2015)
Corrected entry: When Chuck is testifying in response to Jimmy's question about Chuck's supposed EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) Chuck states he is only affected when current is flowing. But Chuck reacts to a cell phone battery Jimmy had planted in Chuck's pocket. A disconnected battery would not have any current flowing.
Correction: The whole point of this sequence is to show that Chuck's EHS is all in his head. It doesn't matter that there is no current going through the battery, because Jimmy knows Chuck will react to it regardless once he sees it.
A valid point. It just struck me as funny that Chuck, a meticulous attorney, should have some basic understanding of the electricity to which he claims to be so sensitive.
10th Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Why didn't Hulk use the Infinity Gauntlet to snap Thanos and his army? He was able to snap everybody that Thanos killed and survived, so he would have survived another snap.
Answer: The gauntlet fell off after his first snap, then Thanos arrived from the past and destroyed the building, separating them. Hulk never got near the gauntlet and the stones during the ensuing battle, so he didn't have an opportunity to try a second snap to destroy Thanos.
Really what they should have done was pulled the stones off the gauntlet and separated them again, and not run around with a fully assembled and powered up Gauntlet for Thanos to grab.
I agree.
That would mean they had to touch them, and nobody besides Hulk, Thor and Carol could touch one without dying.
Ordinary humans can't just grab an infinity stone. Even when Thanos takes the power stone out of gauntlet you see it start to destroy them.
Only the Power Stone has been shown to kill normal people who try to hold it. Hawkeye literally held the Soul Stone in his hand in this movie.
Because he made the necessary sacrifice. Anyone else touching it, big problem. Could be an exception though. The power, reality and space gems have been proven to be untouchable and killing anyone who does (with exceptions though). Time gem is very carefully handled as well so I wouldn't touch that one either. Mind gem, who knows?
I don't recall the Time Stone killing anyone who touched it. The only example I can think of was the Red Skull presumably being killed when he handled the Tesseract, but was in actuality teleported to Vormir. The Reality Stone has a will of its own, so someone could feasibly handle it without harm. You're wonder about the Mind Stone is correct, as no human character was shown in any movie to have handled it directly. Overall though, I would say that I disagree with someone trying to remove a stone from the gauntlet, as one stone could easily be lost, and Thanos could still kill every hero at the battle even with one or more stones missing.
The reality stone attaches itself to anyone touching it like a parasite and slowly kills them. I'd say it's a bad idea to touch it. As for the time stone only the ancient one and Hulk actually touched it and there is reason Strange handles it carefully and without touching it. As for the Red skull, don't really know if he is really alive on Vormir. Who knows what the tesseract did to him?
Whether or not Red Skull is still alive is an interesting topic, but either way, I'd argue that while the Tesseract transported him, it itself is not what made him in his current state, but rather his curse to guard the Soul Stone and the planet of Vormir itself, as it is a dominion of death as Nebula stated.
12th Aug 2019
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Stupidity: This film reveals that the theme park was built upon a dormant volcano. This means that John Hammond either neglected to do a geological survey when picking a location for his park, or simply ignored it and foolishly gambled that the volcano would never erupt.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Lots of people live right next to dormant volcanos. It can be thousands of years before a dormant volcano erupts. Might be a risk, but not as much as lets say living on a tectonic boundary or in tornado alley.
There's a difference between assuming the risk of living in an area prone to a natural disaster versus building a theme park that's completely reliant on tourism revenue in an area prone to a natural disaster. If a person's home is destroyed by a volcano, they can eventually get a new home, even if it takes a year or two. If a multi-billion dollar theme park is destroyed by a volcano, it's not something that can be replaced so easily, especially since no insurance company in their right mind would cover any of it. Additionally, the island in this film is fictional, which means the writers deliberately chose for a volcanic eruption to be the reason for the evacuation, when they could have just as easily made it so that the military decides to carpet-bomb the island or send in ground troops to gun down all the dinosaurs.
A dormant volcano is a dormant volcano, no reason to think it will erupt only years after you build a theme park on it. The area is not "prone" to a natural disaster. The eruption is a total surprise. Vesuvius erupts once every 2 decades or something and a lot more than a simple theme park is inside its destruction zone (red zone), including 800,000 people. And that is an active volcano. Take a look at Carney Park, a military recreational facility on top of a dormant volcano. Stupid?
Also, the examples you gave are areas with civilian populations that rely on those types of attractions to help stimulate the local economy. Isla Nublar is a privately owned island with no civilian population to speak of, other than park employees, meaning it is 100% reliant on tourism for its revenue.
How many theme parks are built in California, which is severely prone to earthquakes?
That's not an apples to apples comparison. California has a heavy civilian population and theme parks help contribute to their economy. Jurassic World is located on an isolated island with no civilian population and has to rely completely on tourism to stay in business.
29th Aug 2012
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Question: Is there any reason, other than to further the plot, that Jack and Will fight over possession of Davey Jones's heart? Their plans once they have control of the heart are not mutually exclusive as Will wants to free his father and Jack wants his debt with Jones settled. They have shown previously that they can work together, so why couldn't one of them take control of the heart and make the demands for both?
Chosen answer: Will having control of Jones' heart would not help Jack in the slightest. Will's intent is to KILL Jones, therefore freeing his father. If Jack had control of Jones' heart, he'd only use it to settle his debt, given Jack's history of treachery. Yes, they could work together, but that would solve nothing: Bootstrap agreed to serve Jones FOREVER. The only way that debt is settled is with Jones' death. That wouldn't help Jack, because, as he says: "With Jones dead, who's to call his terrible beasty off the hunt, eh?"
Davy Jones doesn't have to die in order for Will's father to be freed from service, though. As captain of the Dutchman, Jones has the power to relieve Bootstrap of his duty for any reason or no reason at all. The third film makes it clear that Jones is at the mercy of anyone that is in possession of his heart, when Beckett becomes his overlord and orders him to kill the Kraken and hunt other pirates. Will and Jack could have easily taken possession of the heart and ordered Jones to both release Jack from his debt and release Bootstrap from the Dutchman. Jack even proposes the idea in the next film to Will that Jack can be the one to stab Jones' heart and then release Bootstrap from his service, allowing Will to still be with Elizabeth.
30th Jul 2019
Game of Thrones (2011)
Question: Why does everyone argue over the best way to remove Cersei from power with minimal civilian casualties when they could have just sent Arya to assassinate Cersei? Given her training with the Faceless Men, she could easily infiltrate the Red Keep and get the job done. On top of that, Arya wants to kill Cersei.
Answer: Daenerys and her allies don't just want to kill Cersei, they want to claim King's Landing and free her people from Cersei's grip. The problem is the people of Essos viewed Daenerys as a liberator but the people of Westeros view her as an outsider and usurper. They would never follow Daenerys if she had Cersei assassinated. That is Daenerys' dilemma, she certainly has the ability to wipe Cersei out and obliterate her armies but doing so would make her a tyrant. Which as it turns out is exactly what happens.
But no-one has to know that Cersei was assassinated. Arya has the ability to impersonate anyone she kills, so she could pretend to be Cersei afterwards and profess to the citizens of King's Landing that she has yielded the throne to Danaerys and that she is going into exile.
That plan would be incredibly suspicious. Knowing what they know of Cersei it is highly unlikely the people of King's Landing would believe that she would accept defeat so easily and then voluntarily exile herself, never to be heard from again. In order for that to work, all of Cersei's advisers and closest allies would have to be similarly eliminated, or they would have to be on board with the exile plan. If they are all killed it sort of makes it obvious that something is amiss. There's no way they would be fooled by Cersei suddenly doing a 180 and completely changing her personality by accepting defeat without a fight. If any part of this plan goes wrong then Daenerys would look worse than just an assassin, she would also be deceitful to the people she hopes will willingly accept her rule.
24th Dec 2004
Blade: Trinity (2004)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Blade's base is blown up, there is a shot of Blade being thrown into the air. This is not CGI or even wirework. When the director asked the pyrotechnicians to rig the warehouse, they decided to make the explosion bigger - without telling anybody. The resulting explosion threw the stunt double three metres into the air and nine metres backwards.
Correction: It's just plain false.
Simply saying "It's just plain false" is not a valid correction. You need to provide more detail, such as the stunt coordinator, director, script supervisor, etc. stated in the interview that what is stated in the original entry is not how it happened.
MythBusters Episode 186: Bouncing Bullet - The shock wave from an explosion can propel a jumping person to a distance far beyond what he could achieve on his own. Busted.
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.
Suggested correction: There are west-facing bays in California.
That would still make Earth's rotation in reverse. West-facing bays always feature sunsets, not sunrises as the OP notes.
A "West-facing bay" means the bay (body of water) faces the west. Those standing on the shore looking out into the bay would then be facing East.
Bishop73
I'm guessing the person that submitted the correction meant to say "east-facing bays."
Phaneron ★