Corrected entry: It's said that Sidney appeared in every "Stab" movie except Stab 8 - but in Scream 4, Jenny says that Sid only appeared in the first three.
Sammo
3rd Feb 2022
Scream (2022)
27th Aug 2001
Scream 3 (2000)
Corrected entry: In the beginning of the final scene where Sydney tries to escape from the disguised murderer she runs into the library. In this room Sydney is looking for the hidden entrance behind the bookshelves. As she recognises a bright light underneath one of these shelves she knows which door to open. As she finally enters that room the bright light suddenly disappeared. The room is as dark as a coal chamber.
Correction: The room not only has a bright projection screen running, but many candles, it is not as black as a coal chamber.
25th May 2010
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Corrected entry: I have to post this to refute the comment that denied the existence of an alternate ending. I was overjoyed to find a comment here from someone else who remembered seeing a different ending just one time in the 1960s. I've spent my whole life trying to find someone else who remembered this. In the 1960s the annual broadcast of the film had hosts. I, and two of my friends, ever since childhood always remembered that one year the movie had a different ending. I've always sensed it was the year that the hosts were Liza Minnelli and Lorna and Joey Luft. We never could remember what the different ending was, but we recalled that it was black and white and that our reaction was: It wasn't just a dream that time. Now that I've read this other person's memory of the camera's panning to the ruby slippers under the bed, in black and white, I remember that's what I saw. Another commenter says that there's no evidence that the scene ever existed. I am here to verify that someone else has never stopped wondering for over 40 years about a vague memory of a different ending from one airing in the 1960s.
Correction: https://criticsrant.com/mythbusters-dorothys-ruby-slippers/ This website gives some confirmation, it's one of those myths that get mixed up in people's memories to being convinced they have seen it. The WoZ original footage has been carefully preserved, it's not lost, if this footage made it to the final film for view; somebody would have posted it by now as the footage would still exist somewhere. It's possible you saw a skit or parody though that you mistook for the actual film. That would make sense.
Correction: This is called the "Mandela Effect" (aka 'collective false memory').
It's not a false memory, when I have never forgotten that night, only to find that someone else also remembered it. We may all be connected by our subconscious, but that's going a bit too far. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
But the nature of a collective false memory means just because two people remember something happening, doesn't mean it did! :-).
It's also possible you saw a parody or a different adaption of WoZ one time and it mixed up in your memory as being a part of the 1939 movie. There is no evidence of this ending ever being in the 1939 version. It's not in the script, there is no surviving imagery of it, and no other record of it whether through cast/crew memories or having been noted as a cut scene. Since we do have records of cut/altered scenes from WoZ, more than likely there would be record of this ending somewhere.
That's the exact definition of The Mandela Effect...multiple people having the same memory of something, even though it never happened. There are people who swear that the line in "Snow White" is "Mirror, mirror on the wall," when in fact it is, "Magic mirror on the wall." Just as there are people who are absolutely convinced that Sinbad was in a movie called "Shazaam."
I also remember this ending and it has driven me crazy over the years! I would stake my life on seeing the slippers under her bed. You are not alone, and I am glad I am not either.
Correction: I do remember seeing a different ending where the camera pans down and slippers are under the bed after Dorothy says, "there's no place like home." I saw it in the 80's at a classmates house, we were watching a rented VHS of the film at her birthday party. I even remember her mother saying she had never seen that part before.
Hi everyone, I would also like to include that I too, in the '60s, saw The Wizard of Oz with the ruby slippers under the bed. I told people for years about this, and no one else could remember the ending. So, I decided since we have the internet today, I would see if anyone else saw this alternative ending and am pleased to see that you have.
Correction: Have you ever watched the 1925 "Wizard of Oz" film? I haven't watched it and I don't know its history of being aired on TV. But it was shot in B&W and perhaps that's the version you watched (I'm not claiming it is or isn't though).
I'd say it can't be, if you peek at it (it's available on Youtube), the ending is completely different and wouldn't fit. Fascinating discussion, anyway! To the original poster; nobody means to disparage your memory, in fact we're trying to come up with possible explanations; it's pretty certain though that it can't be an official alternate ending, because we're talking about one of the most iconic and analyzed movies ever. Now it's all about figuring out what sort of clip did they play during that TV broadcast you seem to remember. And there's a gigantic wikipedia page just about the telecast alone. Perhaps it was a wraparound credits sequence?
It's not a pseudo memory at all. I remembered the same thing from the late sixties and have tried to find out for decades why it was just the one year as well and I saw it and remembered it before I ever saw others were trying to find out about it. Very strange but I have to agree that there should be a lot more people that remember it. I'm watching the movie again now and the memory came back again. When I searched I just now saw that others DO remember that different ending.
Thank you. I appreciate your saying that you're not trying to disparage my memory, but that is exactly what the responders are doing. Instead of trying to come up with explanations, maybe people should accept that they cannot prove a negative, and that just because they don't recall it and can't find a record doesn't mean I'm wrong. I don't want to keep repeating myself, I know what I saw, and my best friend (whom I did not meet until several years after) remembers it too.
No. I've never seen it.
24th Feb 2022
Death on the Nile (1978)
Factual error: When Jackie pulls out the unusually high amount of cash that Simon happened to have on him, you can read the banknote was issued in 1940. The movie is set in the 1930s. (02:08:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: 1) The shot is onscreen for a fraction of a second. 2) Even using freeze-frame, I do not see any visible date. Do you have a screen capture of this?
I did not, but I took one for you.;). I just uploaded a zoomed-in and straightened version you prolly can already see in the pending screenshots section. It says "Juin 1940", but you shouldn't need it; the note is on screen for a full second or slightly less, but the fact that allows you to read it without even pausing is that she holds the note straight, her motion stops just long enough to avoid stealing the moment with freeze-frame (in fact if you take screenshots on VLC like I do, the compression might make it harder to read than watching it in real time). And also pre-WW2 1000 Franc notes have a huge date, I circled it for you in the screenshot. You can also notice the signature of the "caissier general" that matches notes post-summer of 1937 at earliest, and the only date given in the movie is 1930. Serial numbers are consistent with a 1940 release as well, they definitely used a legit banknote from the era who happened to be a late print.
11th Mar 2005
How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying (1967)
Continuity mistake: When Finch first gets the job at World Wide Wickets, he asks Bratt to light his cigar. The shot then changes to Rosemary and her friends, and when it comes back to Finch, the cigar has disappeared.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually, no! His left hand is not in frame anymore, but he is looking at it with a "What am I gonna do with this thing?" expression. And even after a long while and a lengthy cut to the president's nephew, at the very end of the scene when Finch says bye to Rosemary and her friends, he's specifically shown holding the cigar as he flips through his book.
24th Aug 2004
How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying (1967)
Continuity mistake: When JB talks to Ms. Jones on the intercom after talking to his wife on the telephone, he asks where the "You know" is. She says "It's in your top right-hand drawer." You can see him moving to his left.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
20th Feb 2022
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: When Ghostface stabs Mr. Himbry, the man screams at full lungs; it's 10 minutes to 5 PM and there's a janitor two rooms away, but nobody finds his body until much later in the night - and that is critical to the plan, because he's the designated diversion.
Correction: Actually, I can correct myself here because there is the fact that everyone was leaving the school at that time, and the janitor is hard of hearing. It does not make much sense that we see the two culprits hanging out at the video store after the killing, but I suppose there are several scenarios one can paint where the body was hidden safely until it was time to display it later in the night, and so they had time to show up somewhere else later, not knowing the exact timeline there.
I was just watching a video where they talk about how it's now a trope in movies that janitors are completely oblivious to their surroundings. Big action sequences happen behind them while they listen to headphones and go about their jobs. You said the janitor was hard of hearing, but it could also be this trope at play.
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.
22nd Mar 2016
Death on the Nile (1978)
Plot hole: Jackie supposedly doesn't have any money, but she seems to have enough to travel halfway around the world, following Simon and Lynette.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As Jackie was plotting with Simon to kill Linnet the entire time, surely its the case that Simon had provided Jackie the funds to be able to do this so that they could enact their plan?
Suggested correction: It's not like "not having money" necessarily means lacking at that exact moment any cash, including the funds for one trip; it can simply mean your lifestyle is not sustainable and you're gonna run out completely dry or be forced to sell your remaining properties soon if you don't change anything. The novel makes it much more clear because the characters actually address it and express concern for her saying that she probably exhausted the small allowance she had for that crazy stunt. Poirot in fact in the novel suggests them initially to just let her go on until she'll eventually be unable to keep up. Back to just the movie, it's also worth noting that she is following them on that one trip, which brought them in Egypt from Venice through Brindisi, so 'halfway around the world' is relative too, it's not like she's been squandering the money in this endeavour for a long time.
22nd Mar 2016
Death on the Nile (1978)
Plot hole: Simon wasn't shot at the time everyone thinks - he shoots himself after killing his wife - so how did he get all that sweat, in his forehead, through his hair? It was all over him.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He'd just been running around the boat, and he'd just killed his wife. That'd make anyone sweat.
What the OP says is that he's already sweaty before he does any of that; if you look at the first scene when he's tricking the others, and in Poirot's flashback during the denouement, it is true that the actor's face is already pretty sweaty, although not quite as much as it is later when Simon is actually in pain. Look at him when he closes the bottle of varnish, his hair is a mess sticking to his forehead. You could argue he was nervous, but in the rest of the movie he keeps his cool all the time without such displays of perspiration.
18th Feb 2022
Scream 2 (1997)
Character mistake: Mrs. Loomis is crazy and does not really think things through (she finishes her speech saying "who gives a f..." and that she's untraceable anyway), however it's worth noting that when she tells Sidney the official version that the police will believe, she is wrong; she says it wiping the gun clean from prints and throwing it away, which means that the police would find the supposed murder weapon with neither Mickey nor Sidney's prints on it, and neither wears gloves. Moreover, she plans to disappear and she was prominently featured in the media coverage, so people would certainly investigate her at least as victim.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't think that a psychopathic character acting irrationally and jumping to unlikely conclusions really constitutes a character mistake. But I do think it's also worth pointing out though that cops usually don't rely on fingerprints on guns anyway - the likelihood of finding a usable print on a gun is minuscule (only about 5%), and there's going to be traces of things like skin-oil and whatnot on it from being handled, so the cops will likely just assume it was used by someone in the room - the most likely candidate being either Sidney and Mickey. Mrs. Loomis is also using a false identity and has got surgery to change her face before, so she could likely disappear pretty easily. Real-life killers get away with disappearing all the time.
I am no expert in true crimes and forensics, I am just challenging the movie logic here (which is why I talk about the behaviour of a crazy character who is running exposition). What I get from your objection though is that the cops wouldn't be able to tell that she wiped the gun clean from prints and so that wouldn't stick out as suspicious? She didn't really change her face, since Sidney recognizes her when she gets a good look at her. Rewatching the scene anyway it's very evident that she does not really care because she simply puts her faith in the cops not being able to track the fictitious Debbie Salt, so I would be happy with a correction here, I was interested in pointing out that the whole first part about wiping the prints and throwing the gun aside does not seem to logically follow up, I take note that according to your objection using 'real science' and forensics practice it might not even be that.
23rd Oct 2008
Death on the Nile (1978)
Corrected entry: Several times, when Poirot explains that someone could have been the murderer, we see scenes in which someone is peeking through the window and observes when Jackie "shoots" Simon in the leg. The distance between Jackie and Simon varies frequently. It's particularly apparent when Salome Otterbourne "peeks" through the window, when Jackie and Simon are almost at arm's length, vs. the first time (when it really happens), when they are maybe a couch length away from each other.
Correction: The scenes each unfold with subtle differences because they aren't of the actual event, but rather Poirot's version at that time.
There is technically no reason why the premise of the murder (aka how Simon gets shot) and all the ancillary details would vary in Poirot's story. Sure, it's not 'the actual event' but the version has to be believable and can only be a variation of what we originally saw (and Poirot didn't). For instance, when he accuses the doctor to pocket the gun, the moment when Ferguson is 'distracted' is identical but Simon's shirt collar is in a completely different position. Or when the doctor calls Ferguson a "Stutzer" telling Miss Ottenbourne to come along, the delivery of the line is subtly different. If everything were *completely* different and just Poirot's mental construction without visual connections at all to the actual scene he after all did not witness, fine, but here we talk about small differences between alternate takes of parts of story unaltered by Poirot's theories.
9th Feb 2022
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Stupidity: Harry Osborn quite literally inherited the company his father founded. Presumably he owns or controls a majority of the stocks, because he was appointed CEO by his father and nobody questioned him. However, one of his employees can just instantaneously fire him from his position. We don't know the precise rules and internal regulations of Oscorp, but it's safe to say that this is not how company hierarchy works, especially considered that no charges are pressed on Harry and everyone would be out of a job (including Menken) if the circumstances were public - like having created a monster and waterboarding a guy in their basement.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Traditionally, CEO's can be fired if the company board votes them out of their position. (Something similar actually happens to Norman in the 2002 film.) While Menken doesn't specifically say this is what happened, he did frame Harry for covering up Dillon's "death," so we can safely assume that there was some sort-of emergency vote to remove Harry in the meantime as part of his power-play. (It'd honestly just be a waste of screen-time to show it.) Additionally, given the allegations against Harry (covering up a death), who would believe him if he came forward, anyways? Also, Electro is being waterboarded in a different location (Ravencroft Institute), not the Oscorp basement.
The thing is, the Raimi movie set the situation up properly. Norman was dealing with the board members in the meeting with the military already, and the business situation was addressed in a short scene that made clear a power play for profit. He was the boss, but not a monarch, and they don't "fire" him showing up with the guards anyway. The 'board' scene in TAS2? Harry treats everyone like lackeys and mentions that everyone will 'work' for Felicia; he bosses everyone around appearing to have inherited the position. It is mentioned that to depose the already ill and scandal-ridden Normal from his post would have needed legal action. Extra emphasis is given by Menken about any scandal going to hurt the company. Even if he had in mind to use Harry as scapegoat from the getgo, as I said, it would hurt the company terribly (going by the logic of the movie first and foremost), and he pulled off an amazing powerplay using incriminating evidence against Harry recorded an hour earlier and that he couldn't realistically share without destoying the company. It was damaged so heavily by an employee going rogue, what about the new CEO going nuts to the point of being kicked out, whatever the reason was? Lastly yes, Ravencroft appears to be part of Oscorp, so I simplified there. Of course yes, the throwaway "you're fired' line saves time, but the situation struck me as contradictory.
I can definitely understand where you're coming from, so I'll just say I think this is probably an agree to disagree situation. I feel like it's easy enough to explain away any contradictions or holes with some conjecture (I think like it ultimately comes down to the movie just not wanting to bog itself down explaining every detail), but the way the movie presents it is indeed a little over-simplified and janky. So I totally understand your take.
3rd Dec 2021
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2020)
Plot hole: The whole premise of the movie is that history would write off the existence of the Ghostbusters after the events of the first movie. In that movie there was prolonged large scale destruction in the heart of a city with millions of inhabitants. It's simply impossible that people would forget or dismiss it. And that's if we do not even begin to assume that the second one happened, even if the director said it did; nothing in his movie shows that, and for a good reason (Statue of Liberty, anyone?).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's nothing in the movie to indicate that people in general have "forgotten" or "dismissed" the existence of the Ghostbusters, nor is that the "whole premise" of the movie. The fact the teacher is a fanboy and that the characters literally watch old news-clips and commercials for the Ghostbusters kind of goes against this. People simply just stopped talking about them because they did their jobs too well and went out of business 30 years prior... they were no longer relevant. I mean, if you want a real-world-analogue, just look at 9/11. It was a massive, generation-defining event, and yet outside of brief memorials once a year (which honestly, fewer and fewer people seem to pay attention to every year), people basically don't talk about it at all anymore. The only characters in the movie that don't believe in ghosts/the Ghostbusters at first are the kids. And their mother has been purposely sheltering them because she hates their grandfather-a Ghostbuster. So it makes sense they wouldn't necessarily know about them.
9/11 was a different kind of event; it didn't have 4 easy to remember heroes who already were on magazines covers all over the world and while it certainly dropped off the radar in many ways, some consequences in the long term have been permanent and it is in the history books. Here the world had proof that there are other dimensions, the dead, etc, and years later the Ghostbusters are relegated to a few youtube videos with a few thousand views (that with Peter supposedly teaching advertising and promotion, even). I didn't mention the kids, although the movie itself knows it's absurd that Podcast does not know anything about it and there's a joke about it. I understand if someone makes a point about the movie taking an ample creative license for the sake of not having to deal with 'realistic' implications of its comedic prequels since it wouldn't service the kind of story it wants to tell here, but I am surprised you say that the Ghostbusters here are not forgotten or dismissed. Somehow they are so fringe that not even the conspiracy theory guy knows about them, and the teacher knows because they are a childhood memory.
Like Ray tells a young Jason Reitman in Ghostbusters II, "Well some people have trouble believing in the paranormal." The public would have even less of a reason to believe in or think about the Ghostbusters since there were no Ghost sightings in thirty years. Not to mention the fact that men walked on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972 and astronauts were viewed as heroes, but we haven't visited the moon in fifty years, and astronauts are no longer regarded as heroes.
We keep conducting research in the field sending people in space when and where necessary and people are well aware that astronauts exist, even if they declined in popularity. It's not random obscure knowledge you can get only if you are looking specifically for it on some Youtube channel that a science nut and a conspiration theorist never heard of before. And we are again comparing something that does not have the same impact it would have to learn that dead people still walk (so to speak) the Earth. BTW, I am not sure (but I could be wrong here and please correct me) that the movie says that there have been 'no' ghost sightings at all; Ray said that they received less calls, not enough to pay their bills, not that ghosts disappeared entirely. It's just that in the Ghostbusters universe, people are kinda jaded about everything, which worked when the movies were comedies and you could say it was obvious paradox and satire that they would save the planet and still get sued once they weren't relevant anymore.
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.
21st Apr 2011
Scream 4 (2011)
Corrected entry: [Bit of a spoiler alert so don't' read any further if you haven't seen the movie yet.] At the end of the movie Sheriff Dewey tells the person who is the killer that Sidney is in critical condition and may or may not live but a few seconds later we see Sidney awake and alert and with enough strength to fight off the killer once again.
Correction: Anger and fear can be more than enough to gather enough strength to fight your way out of a difficult situation regardless of how much of a critical condition you are in.
True, but you can't have a lot of anger and fear if you are unconscious. The way the situation was presented, was that the doctors weren't even sure she was going to make it. It is part of the suspension of disbelief in movies to be very lenient with injuries and their implications, but this is really pushing it.
19th May 2011
Scream 4 (2011)
Factual error: Spoiler: I saw this with two nurses who pointed this out, so I know this is correct. The final sequence takes place in a hospital room in ICU. Jill pulled out IVs and electrodes that were attached to her, then proceeded to Sydney's room. She pulled the call button, then tossed Sydney around the room. Glass shatters. She knocked Dewey out with a bedpan, fired a couple of shots from a gun, and yelled at Sydney, Gail, and the deputy. Sydney even fired the gun at one point. All of this goes on for quite some time, making a hell of a racket in ICU. The problem? The medical staff and security. Any nurse at the nurses' station would have been alerted automatically when Jill pulled the electrodes off herself, and also when the call button was pulled from the wall in Sydney's room. Within seconds there should have been someone come to the rooms to see why they were alerted, but the only time you see a nurse was when Jill hid just inside a door while making her way to Sydney's room. One walked past on her way somewhere as if nothing unusual was occurring. The subsequent fight occurs and you still don't see any hospital staff. So where were they?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The answer to "Where were they", is; "to the mandatory meeting for all non-emergency personnel in the basement conference room." No, I am not joking, it's a message that you can faintly hear in the background (and the subtitles make sure to include it) from the hospital IP speakers. It's ludicrous and I am not saying that it corrects the entry, especially since it does not cover the fact that there should be automatic alerts and some personnel is on duty at their stations as precisely described, but just saying that the script somehow wanted to set up / justify it.
I'm changing the type to "Factual Error" to cover this. It's not a plot hole, it's just a really, really, really, really, really, REALLY badly run hospital as far as security is concerned. And if the hospital seen in the following 'Scream (2022) ' is the same one, it's just further evidence that it's simply a really crummy hospital.
25th Apr 2011
Scream 4 (2011)
Corrected entry: If you have watched the rest of the Scream films you will know that Dewey was stabbed in the back in the first film which caused him to have a very noticeable limp during the rest of the original trilogy. In this film he walks completely normally. Even with modern day treatments he'd still have a little limp.
Correction: Whether or not a person can recover from a noticeable limp depends on the specific injury. All we know is that Dewey suffered a knife wound. Even a specialist in neurology would be incapable of determining the extent of the injury based on that little information. And this ignores that there are plenty of stories of "miraculous" recoveries, despite everything medical experts believe to be true.
The original Williamson script (which was revised anyway) does address it; "His limp is nearly nonexistent. Years of physical therapy", but as the entry correctly says, we don't have even a little limp. In the fifth Scream he is limping again. I am sure you could argue that he let himself go and his physical shape got worse and the limp relapsed, however there are so many inconsistencies throughout the saga about his unrealistic limp and lame arm that I don't think this should be corrected.
18th Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Stupidity: In the first part of the movie, Peter has to deal with the various 'visitors' and bring them too Strange. But the device Strange will use is just going to send them home no matter where they are (conveniently at the push of a button that even complete ignoramus can push) and there are visitors he does not know about, so everything up to that point has been meaningless. Then it becomes a matter of 'curing' every one of those visitors, but if -as it seems - they have been fetched moments before their deaths, 'curing' them is not going to fix anything. They are still going to die or end up in prison for life due to the horrors they committed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Part of the problem we have is that instead of just dealing with the Multiverse, they're also creating parallel or alternate realities in those universes since everyone is pulled from a different point in time in their realities, so any changes besides their death is going to create a new timeline. And I think part of the plan to send them back cured was that from their they could change their course of action or be able to reason with their Spider-Man, which would mean it's better than nothing.
Yes, that's the idea, with all the problems we underlined and the movie ignores entirely. Much like when in Avengers Endgame they don't show you how Cap brings back the stones with the precision required, they elegantly skipped showing us if and how each of them avoids being impaled, drowned, dissolved, or how does it even work for those fetched by the 'same' timeline. We'll see if they deal with these messy timelines at any point in the future.
Suggested correction: With the exception of Doc Ock - who learned Spidey's identity shortly before he died - there's nothing to suggest the other villains were fetched from their realities moments before their deaths, or that they will die upon returning to their realities. Whether or not they end up in prison after returning is irrelevant to the fact that Peter wants to help them. If he doesn't cure them, then they are free to continue causing mayhem regardless of what reality they are occupying.
It's stated in the film that BOTH Otto and Norman died while fighting Spider-Man and that both were pulled from their reality shortly before dying. Max then recounts his fight before being pulled and says "I was about to die." Then Curt asks Max if he died too, but they get interrupted before we find out.
"Shortly" is a relative term. Goblin discovered Spider-Man's identity at Thanksgiving dinner and then died a day or two later. Electro's fate was rather ambiguous, but Jamie Foxx himself implied prior to The Amazing Spider-Man 2's release that he would be appearing in more films, likely including the Sinister Six movie that never came to fruition. We know from The Amazing Spider-Man that Lizard didn't die.
"Shortly before dying" as in pulled during the fight that they died during, not a few days before. It wasn't about being pulled when they found out who Spider-Man was.
Even so, if Green Goblin is pulled from his reality 5 minutes before his death, that would be considered shortly, but it certainly wouldn't be mere moments before he died as the original entry was suggesting. The movie never explicitly states how soon before their deaths they were pulled, therefore we as viewers can reasonably assume that there could have been just enough time for them to alter their course of actions and prevent their deaths.
Also, the reason why Peter wants to 'cure' them is not because they are causing mayhem, but as he explicitly says, because he's not comfortable sending them back when 'some' of them will die - thing is, he can't know that curing their conditions will save them, the whole idea kinda comes out of nowhere. I submitted it as Stupidity because I was sure someone would object it's not a plot hole since it's just stuff the characters 'believe' and there's no proof it's true, however it's funny that 90% of the stuff Peter does in this movie is probably completely pointless.
Saying that he can't know that curing their conditions won't save them is like a doctor saying they won't give a cancer patient chemotherapy because they don't know if it will save them. Their chances of being saved are certainly better if they are cured and cease fighting Spider-Man. If Osborn is returned cured before he attempts to impale Spider-Man with his glider, then that would certainly prevent him from dying in that situation.
I absolutely respect the fact that they want Spidey to be heroic and that the moment he knows that they are going to die he wants to do something about it, that's why I say that it's just funny that there's no indication at all that it would work (by all logic it would not) but it's elegantly glossed over. Let me remind you though that he's not a doctor that wants to cure his sick patient, he's a doctor that wants to cure someone who died 1-2 decades earlier in accidents he doesn't really get into the details of.
There not being an indication that it would work does not make it a stupidity. He can't let the villains remain in his reality, or else it will cause a major multiversal catastrophe. He doesn't want to send them back to their realities and die fighting other Spider-Men, so he does what he thinks is his best option. For this to be a stupidity, there would have to be a rather obvious alternate solution that he overlooked (such as asking Strange to make everyone forget Mysterio's broadcast instead of making everyone forget Peter Parker is Spider-Man).
I don't want to make my own movie in my head, the one we got is more than enjoyable, and I don't want to say that the character is stupid (any movie would be easily solved with afterthought or cynicism, such as "let Strange do his thing"); I merely pointed out that the plot takes you for a ride forcing you to buy premises that are taken as 100% fact and logical (they never ever even imply the fact that what Peter does could be pointless or problematic - in most movies, saving dead people is not a good idea) when they are anything but that. If I know that a crazy person died driving a car into a tree, curing his craziness is one step and not even the most important (would a crazy Norman not survive, if he goes back in time at the right moment and knows what is going to happen? again, the bigger flaw being that if he remembers dying, how can I undo that?) but the movie is surely not going for the "It's most certainly useless, but aww, at least he tried" angle.
29th Aug 2010
Scream 3 (2000)
Continuity mistake: The knife that was thrown at Dewey left the killers hand with blood all over the blade, but was perfectly clean when the butt of it hit his head to knock him out at the top of the stairs. (01:26:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Watch in slo-motion the sequence when he gets hit and you'll see the blade is bloody even during that. He then pulls out of his sleeve (literally!) a clean knife, but it's not supposed to be the original one, since he never retrieved it.
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: That isn't what Jenny says. Marnie says: "That has nothing to do with Woodsboro. I-I thought you said "Stab" was based on true stories." Jenny Randall: "The first three, The original trilogy is based off Sidney Prescott, but then she threatened to sue them if they used her stories. So they just started making stuff up. Stab 5 has time travel, which is by far the worst." She never said the movies didn't have Sidney in them after the first three, just they aren't based on true stories.
I don't think there is a leap in logic in the original post; she threatened to sue the production if they used her story, I can't see how they would avoid a lawsuit by exploiting her character further by putting her in more movies? If it's not a retcon, it's at best a rather problematic line.
Sammo ★
Once a film has put a character name into existence and been released, the studio owns the copyright to that name. Sidney Prescott as a character could still be used in Stab films.
For that matter, you can always argue that a person does not own the story of her own life to begin with, that's not the point. The point is that since it was stated that they were afraid of the legal action Sidney Prescott threatened, and changed course to the saga for that reason, they would -not - put Sidney Prescott in other, even more outrageous and exploitative, material.
Sammo ★
I'm not trying to be rude, but I can tell that you do not know anything at all about copyright law. The above user was correct. You don't know in what context Sidney was used in the following Stab films. The only thing we know about those later films is the very brief description of time travel in Stab 5, and the two fake outs from Stab 6&7.
No offense taken at all, it's true! I am no lawyer and I wasn't trying to get in the intricacies of copyright law and rights of publicity. I am just saying that the movie (previous movie, from 10 years before, in an obscure line of dialogue easily retconned or forgotten...) mentions that Sidney threatened them with a lawsuit, there's no reason why they'd stir her putting her even in cameos multiple times in their every third rate following schlocky flicks. It's simple as that. Would they win a lawsuit, on the grounds of what you (or the other poster) mentioned? Sure, but they never said she did sue them, the point was for the studio to avoid that sort of legal trouble entirely.
Sammo ★
I think we're looking at the difference between a mistake and a criticism with this one. I agree that in Scream 4 the most reasonable interpretation is that Sidney successfully got (at the least) her name removed from Stab 4 onward (especially since without any further "true" events to draw from they would've had to start making things up anyhow). But the line can be taken other ways, and even if it's a stretch or goes against the spirit the line was written in, it's different from a mistake.
TonyPH
It still leaves a plot hole of why Sidney threatened to sue. If not for likeness / appearance, then for what?
AdventurePlace