Plot hole: Why on earth would the military be interested in a soldier (sailor, aviator, whatever) who has to go into combat naked and unarmed, and who is detectable by an enemy equipped with a pair of cheap, mass-produced goggles? How would you treat them if they were injured? They would be utterly useless in any form of military operation, even espionage.
Other mistake: On the back cover of Scream 3 in the Scream trilogy on DVD, the town of the original killings is referred to as Greensboro twice. The correct name of the town is Woodsboro, of course.
Suggested correction: I'm not "correcting" this per se, but I'm wondering if there should be either a separate type of mistake for things like DVD/Blu-Ray cases or posters (Ex. "Multimedia and Marketing Mistakes" or something like that), or if these things would be better classified as trivia? Especially since it's not something everyone can necessarily observe watching the movie itself. (Ex. My Blu-Ray and 4K releases don't have this mistake.) If not, feel free to downvote/delete this. I've just seen a few of these mistakes over the years here, and it always seems a little off to me since it's not something wrong with the film itself.
I agree these aren't valid movie mistake if the studio wasn't involved in the mistake. It could be trivia if only certain home releases had them. These mistakes are like when episodes are aired out of order creating continuity issues,, streaming services make changes, or closed captioning (not subtitles) gets something wrong. It can't be considered a mistake of the film or TV series.
It's tricky - largely, if I'm honest, because adding new types to the site is incredibly fiddly. :-) There's also room for endless debate about what's a "mistake", whether it's about assigning specific blame or just looking for interesting stuff. Likewise things that can only be seen in slow motion, which arguably warrant a category to themselves because there are plenty of them, but then the "mistakes" section gets cluttered. Becomes a user interface issue as much as anything! Will think.
I'm not disagreeing with this post, it's the only way I can reply. But yes, for the first run of the VHS and the DVD of Scream 3, there is that typo on the back cover. Now knowing that, is that version worth more money?
While misprints can sometimes add to something's value, I don't think this would necessarily make this release more valuable. Perhaps the VHS version just because there is something of a collector's market for VHS tapes now. But the movies have been released on DVD, Blu-Ray and 4K so many times, I don't see the DVD version being worth significantly more. (Unless you find a really weird collector who would specifically want THAT version.)
Yes, there is that typo. They were the first run of the VHS.
I didn't say there wasn't a typo. I was questioning whether a typo on the cover would technically qualify as a movie mistake, since it's not part of the actual film.
Continuity mistake: In one of the last scenes, Cate Blanchett is standing in the doorway of her son's room. She is wearing a blue striped dress. When she walks into the room, she's wearing a floral dress.
Plot hole: Peter goes into Carl's mind to save Catherine. When he's in there he sees the tank with the water nymph. On the tank are strange symbols which provide the FBI with the clue needed to find the latest victim. Makes sense so far. But, go back to the scene just after the FBI have captured the comatose killer and are looking in his basement. The FBI are looking at the contraption that the killer uses to suspend himself over the victim. On the contraption is the same symbol seen later on the water nymph's tank. Why didn't the FBI follow up the symbol then?
Plot hole: When Alex and Clear are sitting and having coffee they are on a corner. He looks in the window to see the bus pass, and as he looks to see if it is there, it's not. As the camera pans across the street, there is some construction going on which is blocking that whole road from being used, but then Terry, Carter's girlfriend gets "waxed" by the bus - no way it could have got through all that construction.
Visible crew/equipment: In the scene after Patrick Bateman's second encounter with the detective in his office, we see Bateman having sex at Courtney's apartment. After he rolls off her, Bateman approaches the large, stand-up mirror in the bedroom. In the upper right hand corner of the mirror, a boom microphone can clearly be seen moving around to pick up Christian Bale's lines. The next time we get the same long shot, the microphone is gone. (00:52:45)
Other mistake: When Sugimura is looking for Kotohiki, he activates his scanner to see if she is nearby. The scanner shows her location, but fails to show either Mitsuko or Kiriyama, who show up quickly after.
Visible crew/equipment: When Marcus attacks Simon at the loading dock, as Simon flies through the air after Marcus kicks him, you can see the face of Johnny Lee Miller's stunt double. (00:57:15)
Continuity mistake: When Maya enters Peter's office for the first time, you can see that he had just written something on his laptop. While they talk, you can see the word-program on the computer screen: it shows one page. Cut to Maya, then back to Peter: it shows two pages. Another cut: one page. This happens two or three times throughout the scene. (00:29:30)
Revealing mistake: In the scene where Rudolph is saving Tony from the truck he says, "close your eyes, Tony". But in the next scene when they are on the blimp the boys introduce themselves. Rudolph did not yet know Tony's name but yet he said it.
Continuity mistake: When Eric and Cody goes to the back alley somewhere, he unscrews the cap to the kerosene can and sets it down. In the next shot, the homeless man picks it up and unscrews it again.
Other mistake: In the beginning of the movie when Kimberly is shackled to the floor you can see that the padlock isn't locked. She could just take it off and be free.
Factual error: In one of his first appearances, Proulx the Architect is using a modern pen on a pad of paper when taking notes.
Deliberate mistake: In Paris' death scene, he blows alcohol onto his torch that illuminates the creatures around him. However the area is still illuminated after the light from his torch has disappeared. (01:12:05)
Continuity mistake: When Harrison Ford is watching his wife laying in the bathtub ready to drown, the camera shoots her head several times between cutaways to Ford and the running water. Watch her head relative to the top of the tub in the various shots. In some her head is much higher than in others yet her body never moves.
Continuity mistake: When the Wiccan girl and the guy writing the book were sitting at the table the guy knocks down the cup when he hits the table. In the next shot the cup is up again.
Continuity mistake: When "B" accidentally pulls the leg off of the dead dog, the position of it in her hands changes between cuts.
Revealing mistake: Near the end when a naked John Jasper kills M, he staggers back and you can see a modesty pouch that is covering his private parts. (01:31:47)
Continuity mistake: In the scene in the mine, when the killer attacks the black guy, his miner's light is knocked off. A few seconds later when it switches back to him, he's wearing it again.
Continuity mistake: Several times through the film the Crocodile changes size from the size of a 30 foot croc to the size of a miniature barn.
Suggested correction: Presumably the military are interested because Sebastian's research could lead to advanced forms of invisibility technology, such as the ability to turn materials and weapons invisible for use in combat.
You cannot second guess the film like that. Sebastian is making no effort to make non-living items invisible and throughout the film we see that is not possible (why else would Sebastian have to walk about naked?). His research is on animals (and later humans) not "materials and weapons" and is based on their physiology, anatomy and metabolism. How would you inject a rifle or a tank with a serum? They don't have a bloodstream. The military wouldn't see any value at all in this research - maybe they would be interested in invisibility, but not if it was restricted to living creatures as we see here.
You know how easy it would be for an invisible person to infiltrate an enemy's compound undetected and take out powerful leaders or dictators? Especially if no-one knew the technology existed.
Easy? Impossible. First, they would be naked and unarmed. Too bad if you are trying to knock off Vladimir Putin - a taekwondo black belt - with your bare hands during a Moscow winter! Being invisible doesn't mean you can avoid making a sound or triggering a pressure plate or an infrared detector and so on and so on. Final answer - a naked, unarmed combatant would be about as useful as a chocolate teapot in any form of operation, covert or otherwise.