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.
Factual error: While people around the world are renouncing their wishes, it appears to be daytime everywhere.
Suggested correction: That could very easily be the result of someone's wish.
Other mistake: Steve Trevor is amazed at the existence of escalators and the DC Metro, despite subways and escalators being commonplace by 1917 (the time he's originally from).
Suggested correction: Hardly commonplace - a couple of cities had small subways in the USA in the very early 20th century, and some early escalators, but neither would have resembled what Steve was seeing in 1984. Not to mention that given their limited use there's no guarantee he would have even had the chance to see or use any in his own time.
He also spent time in London during the First World War, where escalators were in common use for both Underground stations and department stores like Selfridges, which he visited.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Continuity mistake: Diana has brown eyes. The flashbacks showing her training have her with blue eyes.
Suggested correction: It is possible for normal humans eyes to change color. Seems reasonable that an Amazonian's eye color could change.
Eye color stabilizes within three years of birth. Most often, however, in the first weeks or months of life, and only by light-eyed ones. With age, the eye only changes hue - for example, from light brown to dark brown, etc. In the film, little Diana is already too old to change the color of her eyes - it's a mistake in the film.
Diana is not human and therefore we have no idea what their bodies do. Eyes changing color could happen later on in life for them due to their slower ageing process or something. Unless it is stated in the movie that their eyes don't change (and it isn't stated)...this isn't a mistake.
Well I didn't know that.Thank you friend.
Plot hole: The plot specifies that the only way to defeat the evil god is destroying the stone or for everyone to renounce to their gifts. That second option is an impossibility, if you consider that people wished things like "a cup of coffee" that they can't take back in any fathomable way or didn't even realise it was a wish, and it's of course statistically impossible that everyone on the face of Earth was convinced by Wonder Woman's pep talk, or was reached by her message, that spreads through the TV.
Suggested correction: Not everyone had to renounce their wish. The point was that as Wonder Woman was convincing people to be better and rescind their selfish wishes, Max Lord began to lose power and regain his humanity enough to be convinced to rescind his wish. Once he did so, all wishes he granted were not only rescinded, but what he took from everyone was given back. And in a fantasy film, you can certainly "give back" the coffee you wished for. It simply becomes as if you never drank it and the coffee goes back into the pot it came from.
Max ultimately does rescind his wish, but the idea as Steve said was for "everyone to renounce their wish", which would have been impossible to begin with, and the movie shows only, constantly, people wishing for bad things, some of which were inherently transient and can't be reversed (such as the person who wished Max to have an audience with the President.: that can't be taken back). The supposed alternative method was impossible to fulfill. However I agree that that the impossible idea suggested was not what ultimately happened, which matters more.;-).
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)
Suggested correction: She never says this sentence. She just said the stone was there, not that it caused unexplained collapses of civilizations.
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.
She doesn't say it in the version of the movie I have. Not at that timestamp anyway.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Character mistake: Barbara mentions that Kush went extinct in 4 AD. Maybe the fourth century? In 4 AD the civilization was still alive and well, and the collapse happened around the 4th century. (01:27:45)
Suggested correction: Barbara didn't say it went extinct in 4 AD. She says the stone appeared in Kush in 4 AD.
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)
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.
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.
Before she does the invisibility trick Steve hasn't put on the full throttle yet.
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)
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.
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!"
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.
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).
Stupidity: Diana and Steve are both characterized as heroes and highly moral individuals, but they both are perfectly fine, without giving any shadow of a second thought, with the fact that Steve is inhabiting the body of a real person, with a real job and friends, completely innocent and whose life has been taken. We don't ask for a movie to cover every possible nuance, but they make reference to his job, use his stuff, endanger the innocent body and use it 'for pleasure' too. They make a big deal of Cheetah losing her humanity, but what the heroes do is arguably worse.
Suggested correction: While this is bad writing that makes them unsympathetic, it is not objectively a mistake. They endanger the man through Steve because the entire world is at stake. They have sex using his body because they, like the writers most likely, do not consider it rape because there's no indication that the man is conscious in Steve's body or that he'll ever find out (So closer to date-rape), and ultimately, Diana wanting Steve to stay in the man's body forever, while arguably out of character, is a character flaw they both realise she needs to overcome by the end of the movie.
Not objectively a mistake? Actually I agree! Stupidity entries are in a tab separate from the proper "mistakes" tab for a reason; all those behaviors that are not full plot holes but happen against logic and character, just because they are being a tool for the plot. The movie does not make them unsympathetic by design; that would be good writing, that wouldn't be stupid, it would be human. But no, their love antics are never characterized as problematic or inherently creepy. The choices they make and that are outlined in your comment are glossed over; the movie hides the face of the guy but they both see it when they 'rape' him and when they risk his wellbeing, When she gives up on him she does it to get her powers back, she is not overcoming a character flaw, since the presence of the "other guy" is not addressed even at that moment, even if they see him. (if Steve were in a new body, the scene would have played exactly the same). Nobody could act this blasè.
Everything you've said in the stupidity entry and comment is your opinion (well, probably the opinion of the one YouTube video we've all seen where the guy bashes the film and then others repeat his opinion). Wonder Woman sees Steve, not the man whose body Steve is in. Not to mention we don't hear all their conversations about the situation because it would become clunky dialog. And before she starts losing her powers, the two really had no idea what had happened to the man. But nothing in the film regarding this situation is out of character of the "good guys" because we've never seen them in this situation (nor has anyone actually been in this situation to claim "nobody would act this blasé).
I invite you to rewatch the actual movie and not any youtube video; she sees the guy, they both do; he's never Chris Pine, who is 'canonically' never in the movie as himself. Chris Pine is what we, the audience, see. Look back at the scene of the mirror. They explain it. She says "He's great, but all I see is you." Not meaning that she LITERALLY sees Steve, but that she knows it's Steve and so she thinks of him. He even says, about himself, when he tells her to look for other men, "What about this guy" and she says "I don't want this guy." What's in the movie is out of character for any human being who is not delusional to the point of actually seeing the face of someone else. Which is what the movie needs to turn us viewers into to make the plot work.
Nothing in the film suggested to me she sees the other man after Steve comes back. I was basing my comments on watching the film (the YouTube comment was because this mistake is the same rehashed comment found there). When the camera pans around and the audience sees Steve, I took it to mean Diana sees Steve. When she says "all I see is you", I took that to mean she literally sees Steve. The mirror scene was to show the world still sees the man, but not Diana. But I can understand if others' take away was Diana sees the other man but just knows inside her heart it's Steve.
She sees that guy at the party, and only through Steve's words she then realises it's him, which the movie portrays from then on by showing Steve to us. The earlier part of the mirror scene is even more clear. He says; "Look at you. It's like not one day has passed." And she replies jokingly "I can't say the same thing about you." He does not look the same! And he in fact then goes to the mirror saying, "Right, right, right." and comments on the look of "He." So yes, I do firmly believe that it's what the movie says. If I may; the fact that some people on Youtube posted a video saying some things does not mean that anyone else supporting a specific idea - which does have a foundation in what the movie said, as I hope I clarified - did not reach the same conclusion and should be dismissed because they are lazily rehashing hersay. Glad you at least see where I come from, even if you may have not read the movie facts the same way I did.
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.
Suggested correction: It should be noted, Lynda Carter played both parts. Those are literally Lynda Carter's eyes we see in the flashback.
Still doesn't explain why they are green in the flashback. Lynda Carter has blue eyes. Probably caused by a color filter.
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).
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)
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.
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.
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.
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).
Continuity mistake: After Barbara resigns her powers, she's back to her black dress, but she was wearing brown clothes and boots before she asked for the second wish.
Suggested correction: When Barbara made her second wish, she was wearing a brown jacket with a black shirt underneath it, and she could have removed her jacket prior to transforming into her Cheetah form. After she turns back to a human, you can see that her torn shirt is the same color. Also, while it's out of focus with the sunset in the background, it appears that the skirt she's wearing could be the same cheetah pattern she was wearing when she was fighting Wonder Woman at the White House.
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.
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).
"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.
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.
Most people would have wished the nukes to disappear pretty instantly especially with the world falling into chaos and everyone panicking about it.
And others would have wished for them to hit and kill the "heathens" or "hateful." Cancellation.
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