Revealing mistake: When Luke is being fed to the Rancor, in Jabba the Hutt's dungeon, there are black outlines around the beast's legs, from the composite's blue screen special effect. This was edited out in the special edition rerelease.
Continuity mistake: When Luke removes Vader's mask, Anakin's eyebrows have been removed in the 2004 DVD. However, a part of his left eyebrow can still be seen in some shots, and it even changes size a few times. (01:55:50)
Suggested correction: It's not part of his eyebrow. It's a shadow.
Trivia: When Luke and Obi-Wan are talking after Yoda's death, Luke refers to him as Obi-Wan. This is the only time in any of the movies that he uses that name instead of Ben.
Suggested correction: If you are saying that this is the only time Luke refers to him as Obi-Wan, then yes, this is true. But if you are saying this is the only time Luke has ever said Obi-Wan, then you are incorrect; Luke uses the name Obi-Wan Kenobi in the first movie when explaining why he was so far from home.
Trivia: Anakin Skywalker's first name is first mentioned in this film. His name comes from a friend of George Lucas, British film director Ken Annakin.
Suggested correction: Actually his first name first revealed in Empire Strikes Back when he is on call with the Emperor. He says, "I have no doubt that this boy is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker."
Anakin's name was not used in the original release of "The Empire Strikes Back", therefore the trivia is correct. George Lucas retconned the special edition release and added "Anakin." Originally Luke was referred to as the "son of Skywalker."
Revealing mistake: After the Rebels break into the bunker, a Rebel in the background punches an officer. But if you watch closely or play it in slow motion, the Rebel's hand never comes into contact with the officer's face. (01:33:25)
Revealing mistake: When Han Solo lifts his hands up and he spots the Walker that Chewie and two Ewoks are in, one of his hands is transparent, and the trees are visible through his hand.
Suggested correction: They are not transparent. What you are seeing is glare from the bright sky in the background. You can see other ghost images matching the bright white portions of the shot. Besides, there would be no reason for it to be transparent. It appears to be a fully on-location shot with no compositing.
Completely not true. You can see the trees through his hands; therefore, they are transparent.
Look closer. There is a white ghost image that matches the bright white sky, offset to the left and rotated slightly. And why would the hand be transparent? This is not a composite shot.
While it's not a composite shot, that would mean that the shot of the imperial officer yelling "freeze" in the original version wouldn't have been transparent. But it's not a composite shot too, therefore, they are transparent.
This comment makes no sense. What Imperial officer are you referring to and what does it have to do with this shot? And if this isn't a composite shot, which you seem to be admitting, why would the hand be transparent? Do you think Harrison Ford's hand actually became see-through?
Suggested correction: This was not a "mistake". The outlines showing around the beast's leg were due to the limited CGI technology at the time the film was made. With advances in special effects in the following decades, the filmmakers were able to enhance the CGI quality in later releases.
raywest ★
But it is a mistake to show that the Rancor is not real, and the outlines show that. It's certainly not intentional.
lionhead
Not sure what you mean that the rancor is not real. Of course it's not real. The issue is, at that time, it was not technically possible to show the beastie without the lines showing. I classify a mistake as something that was not intentional. In this case, it was, due to the limitations of CGI in the 1980s.
raywest ★