Corrected entry: In the world of Issac Asimov robots, the three laws are immutable. At the beginning Andrew makes a lavish presentation of the three laws. At the end of the film, Galatea breaks the first law (not to harm) in order to conform to the second law (obey orders). The three laws are hierarchical in that the first law takes precedence over the second. In Asimov stories, the contradiction between the laws most often causes paralysis of the robot in question.
Jon Sandys
27th Aug 2001
Bicentennial Man (1999)
29th Oct 2015
Halloween (1978)
Corrected entry: There's no way Annie could have locked herself in the laundry room considering the lock is on the outside of the door.
Correction: It's a figure of speech when one says 'I/you locked myself/yourself in/out'. She was alone, nobody knew that Michael was skulking around, and she got locked in the laundry room. Anyone would say they locked themselves in.
That's pure opinion, not a correction.
In this scene, you can literally see her turn the lock knob which is above the handle before she tries to get out.
Correction: It's not a figure of speech since the door magically locked itself because the wind blew it shut. She tried to open it and it wouldn't open because the lock is on the outside. Why do you think she was trying to get out the window?
The point is she didn't literally lock herself in - she was locked in. Personally I think it's a minor semantic difference - she may well just think she did something wrong that led to the door locking itself. Regardless it's a standard turn of phrase, if technically inaccurate.
10th Jun 2018
Flight of the Phoenix (2004)
Corrected entry: At the end of the film we learn that all of the survivors lived happily ever after and went on to enjoy hugely successful careers in their chosen fields. Haven't they forgotten something? Elliot committed a cold blooded murder, shooting dead a wounded nomad because he would have interfered with their construction plans. Self defence is one thing but shooting an injured man in the head in order to conserve water is an entirely different matter. Obviously the Chinese authorities are going to visit the site as soon as the story breaks and they are going to want to know who shot one of the citizens dead, and why. Elliot is going to face a range of serious charges and will be extradited to China to face trial.
Correction: There is no indication that any of the survivors would have told about the man Elliot killed. The nomads wouldn't have told either, as they committed several murders before that and tried to kill them after as well. Elliot also basically put him out of his misery. He was dead anyway.
The Chinese would not have allowed the murder of one of their citizens to go unpunished. We are dealing with a legal system that executes people for crimes that would incur a suspended jail sentence anywhere else. They would not accept euthanasia as a defence, either. Elliot would be on a plane back to China whether he liked it or not.
The USA and China don't have an extradition treaty. China could ask, the US would most likely tell them tough luck, and Elliot would still get to live a happy and successful life. Couldn't ever return to China, but I'm sure he'd cope.
Wrong. If an American citizen commits a crime such as murder or assault or other violent crimes, the American citizen is going to be charged regardless of where the crimes were committed. Even if the crime was committed in a country with which the US doesn't have an extradition treaty, They have have other ways to you charge for your crimes. They don't have to extradite you for you to be charged.
Citation? Because with zero evidence the US isn't going to take China's word for it and charge him themselves. And China can charge him with a crime without him present, and...then what? The charge may technically exist, but it won't affect his life in any meaningful way. And as the original correction notes, officials may want to know what happened, but that doesn't mean they'll find out. This entry is massive conjecture at best.
If evidence to US, like a picture of the body, or a video of the person murdering someone, and you are an American then US will charge you, and sentence you to prison. The only way court would truly decide that you cannot be charged because the crime was committed outside of the US is if you are non-American. We don't know if Elliot is an American citizen.
Again... Citation? A photo of a body isn't evidence. Without evidence you can't be charged. And given the lack of info and detail in the film this is all hypothetical conjecture which still doesn't constitute a mistake.
What about a video of you murdering someone? Would that not prove your guilty?
If you want to have a detailed debate about extradition treaties and what evidence would or wouldn't exist and justify someone being charged with a crime, great, but here isn't the place. The above mistake claims Elliot would face charges and be extradited to China. There's no evidence of his crimes and no extradition treaty with China. People get away with crimes every day. The sole opportunity for evidence is eyewitness testimony, as the correction above points out, and no-one would say anything, plus it would be questionable at best. As such the "mistake" is invalid, end of story.
The Chinese government would first have to know about the murder before they could do anything about it. Given how the sand shifts during the storm after he is killed, enough to at least cover the Phoenix, there is little chance they would ever find the body.
6th May 2016
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Factual error: When the first assassin drives to Waterloo station to take out Simon Ross and Bourne, he is driving a BMW 3 series with a 2006 UK licence plate. However the events in this film are meant to follow on six weeks after the previous film, which make it still set in 2004.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Nowhere in either of the first 3 Bourne films indicate the year they are taking place.
Technically, there is a timeline. You may have to watch the films again, and read up on when production for each film began and wrapped. The Bourne Identity was filmed between October 2000, and Spring/Summer 2001 (Greece scenes). Supremacy (With the exception of the New York ending which was filmed two weeks prior to the release) was filmed between October 2003, and March 2004 Ultimatum was filmed between October 2006 and March 2007 (which explains the snow seen in New York) Identity takes place in the winter of 2000, while Supremacy is set two years later, with Ultimatum taking place six weeks after he escaped Moscow. Legacy takes place around the same time as Ultimatum, and the last Bourne film (Jason Bourne) is set ten years after the events of the Supremacy/Ultimatum timeline.
The year of filming can't be used as indication of when films are set.
8th Jun 2018
The Terminator (1984)
Other mistake: Why does the Terminator have a HUD (Head-up-Display) or a GUI (Graphical User Interface)? This is a stupid mistake in many movies with cyborgs or androids. A machine itself does not need a HUD. A HUD is an interface for humans to help us interact with machines. A machine does not need a graphical interface to interact with itself. A machine can interpret the reality around internally using machine code within its CPU using zeros and ones. There is no need to project a HUD in the eyes of the terminator. (of course it looks cool and the viewer gets the information that the Terminator is a machine, but in reality it would be - let's say - a stupid redundancy to build in a monitor into a camera).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The terminators are AI, since AI doesn't exist for real yet (not on that level) you don't know what it needs or how its supposed to function. Since these terminators are supposed to look and act like humans as they are infiltration units Skynet has build them to operate like humans as well. To help with thinking and acting like a human Skynet has build in a HUD in the optics so it will keep its focus on the visuals and not switch to internal sensors and computing when acting out it role as a human, that would look unnatural. With your logic its stupid for the terminator to put on sunglasses too, but it does anyway because it thinks like a human.
Gotta disagree - the sunglasses are it trying to fit in/cover damage, not "think like a human." All "thinking" can be done internally. It's like saying modern smartphones need stats displayed on the inside of the screen which we can't see - there's zero need for them, because in order to display that information, the information has to exist in the machine already. And if it already exists, the machine already has access to it, without then displaying it on something else.
But it's not a smartphone. It's an AI, an AI built to be as human as possible. Whatever is operating its brain has external sensors and possibly an external computer telling it new data (like for example date, target location, primary objectives) which isn't directly part of its own brain. You can see that in the third movie when the Terminatrix gets confirmation about identifying its primary target, and it gets excited from it. The data it receives is coming from somewhere else and the terminator is reading from it, receiving it through an interface in the eyes. Probably in the future they have a direct link to Skynet telling them what to do and when they go to the past that link with Skynet is turned into a computer database with an interface for the terminator to communicate with.
And how does this Skynet-upload to the terminators make the terminators more human if these information are displayed in a HUD? I am human too and never received any information into my eye as a projection (not without computers or Google glass or something like that). You are talking about simple data transfer, no need for a HUD and especially not to make the terminator more human (cause we humans do not have natural born HUDs in our eyes or brains). You are mixing up two things which really don't belong together. I was talking about recognition of environmental data in the first place and data processing of these. Still I don't see any need to HUD these information. We humans do not have HUD and are 100% humans. Your logic "HUD to become human" doesn't make any sense with or without a skynet data link.
It's not a simple little robot that uses sensors and act on them with a simple binary CPU, its an AI. It has optics, like I said it receives information and its displayed in the optics so it would not be distracted from acting human, turning inside itself to process it. You can give bad examples about us not having HUDs all you want but we get all outside information from our sense, 4 of them located in the head. We turn our attention to those senses when new information arrives. The Terminators get information input the same way, through the optics. They are build like a human. It can hear sound through its ears and smell from its nose. It sees with its optics, new information displayed upon them. What's so hard about that?
Because we don't have HUDs to display all that info, and we work just fine as human. All the information is dumped directly into our brains. The Terminators would work likewise - there's literally no need to have a visual interface - it's a pointless middleman between the sensors and the processor which only exists because it looks good on film.
I see where youre going with this and I would theoretically agree if (and that's the big if) the HUD-Display would be an extra device which the Terminator puts on his head. I agree if the human-emulation-part would be mostly human and the HUD part would be a standalone extra. Problem is they put both into one machine. Which means the whole construction is not a human emulation device with the aim "developing by mimicry humans." If so then the terminator-race isn't doing well by puting non-human things into their human-emulation-machines.
It's just way the machine is put together. There could be many reasons for the machine to have a HUD, like power efficiency or even they were forced to do it this way since the CPU it needs was too large to fit in the skull. Instead of directly interfaced it reads external inputs through the HUD in its optics. Not because it wants to, but because it has to. Might not seem all that logical and efficient, but I'm saying there can be a reason for it. Even information concerning itself is done this way because it can't connect with itself directly. Programs, software tell it what is going on. If my computer would have optics and the ability to read its quite handy when it needs to read off other machines and programs, ones that are not necessarily connected to it. It would seem the terminator brain, the CPU, the AI, is separated from the robotic body. The only thing connecting it with the rest of the body is the optics, giving it information.
Power efficiency? Putting information which came from "the eye" in the CPU and then back again into the CPU would cost double power and CPU size, cause you are doing anything two times. You are jumping now from "HUD for being human" to other translucent arguments. And your computer could have optics and read off other machines yes but it could do that without HUD. You only need a webcam and OCR. Reading data directly from inside other machines yes we call that bluetooth. However in none of these there is an extra machine outside the machine for the machine. It is always integrated into the machine and processing is internal.
Its all assumptions versus assumptions. I never said the HUD was there for the machine to "be more human", I said it was there because the terminator needs to keep its focus through the eyes to prevent it going internal whenever there is outside information. This all assuming the CPU in the brain isn't connected directly to the rest of the body, because of capacity and power issues. Again, all assumptions but what do you expect from sci-fi? Is it a mistake in the movie? Hardly.
Suggested Idea: Firstly, I agree that if the terminator type CPU operates as a binary machine (such as a laptop or smartphone) all internal communication would be in 1's and 0's. Even our current computers, which may output hex code to dump files is for the benefit and 'readability' of humans. However, a theory: I believe the HUD on the Terminator may be some kind of 'diagnostic' feature which was built in to the original machines which were first developed by humans. I may be over thinking this (it is just a movie) however if you look at some remote operated drones and such, information is provided on a HUD for the benefit of human operators (in an areal drone, this may be altitude, heading, speed etc). My theory would be that perhaps this 'diagnostic' is an integral part of the CPU and Skynet did not want to 'risk' disrupting processes by restructuring the processor architecture (these must be built in very sophisticated factories, assumed to have remained from before the war due to the complexity of them). If I were a super efficient AI - personally I would see a huge advantage in removing it (think Windows - how much processing power and effort goes into 'pointless' graphics for the benefit of the user, such as the animations when you copy a file). Your modern computer has processor cycles to spare, but in the terminators I would guess these would be less so - hence the assumptions that it is less risk rather than just Skynet just 'never got around to it'.
This can be one of the reasons why the terminator has a HUD. One of the most plausible I'd say. Skynet build these terminators fast, not sophisticated, eventually they are all based off a human used robot as displayed in T3. All they did was improve its combat capabilities and human mimicking.
1st Feb 2018
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Corrected entry: During a mid-credit scene, while traveling in space en route to Earth, the Asgard refugees ship is ambushed by another colossal ship. This, however, should have not happened. Science fiction fans know that ships don't go gallivanting in empty space on conventional drives. Instead, they use a faster-than-light mode of travel method as "performing hyperspace jumps." Moreover, Asgard and Midgard (Earth) are two of the nine realms. There is one hyperspace jump between them. (02:04:00)
Correction: Stumbling upon something is not a mistake, whether in real life or in the movies.
Correction: Asgard and Earth are not one hyperspace jump away, just because you can get to earth in one step from Asgard using the bifrost. Secondly as seen in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 a ship has to go through a jump point in order to go into hyperspace which this ship is apparently not near one yet. We have also seen that ships require fuel and we can assume that when not in a hurry they will only drift until needed. We are also not aware of what this or Thanos' ship is capable of.
I didn't say anything about Bifrost and hyperspace being that same; and the fact that there is one jump point between the Midgard and Asgard is not my inference from this film. But all of these aside, ships still don't go gallivanting in empty space on conventional drives. Sanctuary II didn't pull them out of the hyperspace either. They were in empty space, doing pretty much nothing. Sanctuary II stumbled upon them. That's a mistake.
Stumbling upon something is not a mistake, whether in real life or the movies.
But gallivanting in empty space on conventional drives is a mistake, both in real life and movies.
They're not "gallivanting" - as the original correction stated, GotG2 showed you need jump points to travel significant distances, and the Asgardian ship is presumably en route to one when it's intercepted by Thanos.
They don't seem to be heading for a jump point. They seem to be totally aimless. "Presumably" is a word that renders this whole site purposeless; if it looks like a mistake, it is a mistake. Plus the first Captain America film and the first Thor film state that Midgard and Asgard are part of the nine realms connected by Yggdrasil (or, as Jane Foster puts it, an Einstein-Rosen wormhole).
"Presumably" is just as valid as "seems to be." :-) We have no clue as to their fuel status or intentions, beyond going to Earth...somehow. And as you repeatedly keep ignoring, GotG and indeed Thor 3 itself have demonstrated that interplanetary travel needs a jump point or a wormhole. As such at the very least they're making their way to one of those under conventional power, because what other option do they have? This isn't a mistake, it's pure conjecture. Just because space travel doesn't work in the MCU the same way it does in other sci-fi movies, that doesn't make it a mistake.
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.
I vividly remember once seeing the camera pan down to the slippers under the bed at the end of the movie. I didn't know anyone else had seen this until I just Googled it and this thread came up.
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.
26th Apr 2018
The Family Man (2000)
Question: In the scene on the stairs with the chocolate cake when he pushes cake in Kate's face - was that supposed to happen? I ask because she is laughing so hard, and after a second or 2, Nicolas looks up as if to look at the director.
Answer: Http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Family-Man, -The.html ///// In section 69 /// jack (out of breath) I want it... She looks at him, then takes the whole piece in her hand and smooshes it right in his mouth... Beat. Then, Jack starts laughing... jack (CONT'D) Thank you... KATE It's good, right? He takes a big clump of it and smooshes it in her mouth. They stay there a moment, lying on the stairs, feeding each other cake, laughing. Jack leans back on the stairs. He looks at Kate's face, practically covered in cake, smiling, and realises... ...he hasn't laughed like this in thirteen years. Then.
Is it clear if that's a transcript of the film or the original shooting script? Because if the former it doesn't really answer the question.
That's the original script. A transcript of the film after it has come out does not contain blocking information or information about the character's mindset. Those only contain dialogue and the name of the music scores playing similar to movie subtitles. An original script contains blocking and the character's mindset to give the actors/film crew an idea of what to do and the meaning of the scene.
30th May 2016
The Crow (1994)
Corrected entry: When Eric tackles Tin Tin in the alley, we see him connect with Tin Tin. The shot then changes and he's about 3 foot away from Tin Tin and connects again. (00:19:00)
Correction: It's the same action shown again from a different angle, not a continuity error. This technique is used frequently with big climactic explosions too - we're not meant to assume an object exploded more than once. We're just seeing it happen multiple times.
Not always - trouble is with things like this they have to be judged on a case by case basis. Some repeated actions are sloppy editing, some are a directorial decision, so not even a "deliberate" mistake, they're just showing the same thing a couple of times for impact.
15th Apr 2018
Lost in Space (2018)
Corrected entry: The chariots are electric vehicles (they need to recharge in the sunlight), but they have rev counters. Electric vehicles don't have a rev counter, and even if they did, an electric motor moving the wheels at 9000 rpm would cause the car to move at a ridiculous speed.
Correction: Supposition: we don't know what the future's technology will bring, so mechanical improvements are certainly within possibility.
Regardless of any mechanical improvements, an electric motor spinning the wheels of a vehicle at 9,000 RPM (assuming the wheel's circumference is 1 meter as an understatement), the chariot would be moving at 150 m/s or 500 km/h. The specified in the show that they move at about 35 mph.
You're also entirely discounting the idea of gearing, as used in conventional engines. Without knowing the schematics and internal workings, we can't assume that the electric motor (s) are directly connected to the wheels as they are in modern electric vehicles.
It would appear you two are arguing apples and oranges. If the rev counter is measuring rotations of some undefined motor function, then gearing could make a difference. If, as the original comment states, it is measuring wheel rotation, then that would be post-gearing and the speed issue would be correct.
Looking at the dash board it has two gauges, RPM and Km/H. Also a "4W" "Diff Lock" "H4" indicators, from what I have seen so far about the tech crew of this production, they lack "tech." Those indicators are for standard single engine 4WD. I would say no attempt has been made, when designing the chariot prop, for any proper electric vehicle technology to be researched. Eg, 4 wheel motors.
9th Apr 2018
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Question: Deanna Troi states that they will get rid of poverty, disease, and war within next 50 years. How would they get rid of things like autism, ADHD, or dyslexia? Aren't those medical conditions that cannot be cured?
Answer: Troi says that future medical research is far more advanced and humanity has learned to work together and overcome many social problems without being specific. It's unknown how these conditions will be cured, but possibly through advanced gene therapy, new drugs, new surgical techniques, etc.
Answer: The things you listed are not diseases, they are conditions. It is more plausible that she was referring to things like cancer, diabetes, stroke, and other similar disorders which, at some point in time, there might be a cure.
Troi said poverty disease war would all be gone within the next 50 years. I thought she meant things like autism ADHD and dyslexia would be gone too not just disease.
No, that's why she said disease.
Well the movie tells us that all bad things on earth would be gone within the next 50 years. I thought that would have included conditions like autism dyslexia or ADHD as well as disease.
The movie doesn't say "all bad things." She specifically says "disease." In other words things that can be cured, get cured. No doubt some things will be curable that we currently can't cure, and some things will never be curable. You're overanalysing a line used simply to explain that humanity advances itself in a short space of time.
17th Apr 2002
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Continuity mistake: When Waco Kid is lying down on hay bales at the end of the film, there is no horse. All of a sudden when he's invited somewhere by Sheriff Bart, a horse appears. (01:33:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is true that the horse suddenly appears, but Jim is reclined on hay bales, not boxes.
For future reference, this is what the "change the entry's wording" option is for.
This entry is about the sudden appearance of a horse. It has nothing to do with The Waco Kid reclining on boxes nor does the entry say he was reclining on boxes. It says that he's reclining on bales of hay.
It did say bales of hay - I've left the correction and "change wording" comment online for a bit for informational purposes.
6th Jul 2005
Batman Begins (2005)
Question: A few times in the movie, you can see Illinois license plates. Is Gotham supposed to be in Illinois?
Answer: Actually in the DC universe, Gotham is meant to represent an over-the-top version of Chicago. Metropolis is the New York stand in.
Answer: Gotham is understood to be NYC on steroids and/or acid.
Answer: It is a mistake, Gotham City is canonically in New Jersey. It's a short distance from Metropolis.
True of the comics, but the Christopher Nolan Batman films are their own self-contained universe.
9th Jun 2008
Iron Man (2008)
Corrected entry: When Stark escapes from his captors wearing the first Iron Man suit, towards the end of the scene he is shot up by a .50 caliber machine gun. Those bullets would have gone straight through the improvised suit, which is only made of those common metals that Stark had access to in the cave and weapons cache, and out the other side.
Correction: We don't know how the suit is designed. He had access to a great deal of advanced technology, as the reason he was there was to build an advanced weapon. He obviously designed the suit with the intention of repelling the weapons he knew they had.
Stark may have had access to a great deal of access to advanced technology, but the only metals he had were metals that are relatively common on earth. Metals that are relatively common on earth are not strong enough to stop bullets from a 50 caliber machine gun bullets, and there is no way to melt common metals on earth, and mix them to create an alloy strong enough to stop 50 caliber machine gun bullets even with advanced technology.
And there's no way to make an arc reactor either, or create much of the technology we see in the movies. Ultimately some degree of suspension of disbelief is necessary.
16th Dec 2017
Flightplan (2005)
Question: Where did the hijackers hide Julia?
Answer: They hid her in the avionics section. Stephanie would have made sure that she "searched" that section since she is one of the hijackers.
Which part of the avionics section? The nose of the plane?
The avionics section can be much larger than the nose of the plane. On a 747 for example, it's "1.7 metres tall, and about 60cms wide, but goes the full width of the plane." A photo is here, and you could easily stash a child in it. Http://www.billzilla.org/aviationpage3.html.
Actually if you look at the shape of the interior where they hid Julia you can tell that it's the nose of the plane, and it would have been far too full with all kinds of equipment to put a child inside.
OK, well there's already a mistake mentioning that, so there's your answer. In the plot they hide her in the nose, but in the real world that's impossible.
12th Jan 2014
Die Hard (1988)
Question: Why didn't Hans Gruber simply place 5 hostages in a room and threaten to blow their brains out if John McClane doesn't hand himself in? John McClane is the good guy with a conscience and Hans Gruber is the ruthless killer that kills 2 people in a heartbeat, John would have been forced to hand himself in or be responsible for their deaths. Even if Hans didn't want to kill anyone, he could have pretended to shoot people one by one. John wouldn't know any better.
Answer: We don't know what John would have done in that circumstance. Obviously Hans was planning to kill everyone with the explosives anyway at the end. Perhaps John would have suspected that. Also, doing that would invite more police incursions.
Hans thought Ellis was a good friend of John's and John still didn't give up when he was going to shoot him. If John wouldn't save his friend, why would he care about others. Plus Hans told Karl earlier he could stall the police but not if they heard gun shots. The police would have absolutely stormed the building if he started killing the hostages.
The fact that we don't know how John McClane would have acted doesn't remove the fact that it would most likely have been a good way to coax him out. Also, depending on when Hans Gruber would have decided do implement this strategy, John probably wouldn't have known about the explosives on the roof as he only finds out about them at the 3rd act break. As for the "more police incursions" part, I couldn't disagree more; Hans already killed two hostages - one on speaker with the police -, all the cops in LA seem to be there already, and don't forget that the involvement of the FBI is part of their plan anyway. This is definitely the one major plot hole of this otherwise perfect film.
It would have been, but plenty of movie plots don't pan out the "perfect" way without it being a plot hole. Killing Ellis is a reasonable first step, it doesn't work, and then the events of the plot pick up pace - Gruber goes to check the detonators, as that's a priority. He's hoping/assuming they can get through the rest of their plan by isolating McClane, or at least prevent him causing more chaos. They want the power shut off - they don't want to cause such massive carnage that the building is stormed before then. They need to get helicopters, blow the roof, and escape as planned. Hans doesn't want to derail things any more than they already have been.
Seems to me like they have all their bases covered; the police isn't even able to get in with a tank as he blows them up so I don't think the police "storming the building" is even a possibility in the reality of the film. Also, after blowing up that tank, that's two hostages and a bunch of cops dead so I would say the situation is pretty derailed. Everything is going as planned for Hans and his team, except for McClane, so he should be in damage control mode and this is an obvious solution. He doesn't even have to change his plans, just tell McClane he's gonna kill one hostage every 10 minutes until he shows up unarmed and tell one of his henchmen guarding the hostages to do it while they go along with the plan and maybe even try to find McClane at the same time. I think this is something Hans should have at least considered, but the screenwriters just didn't think about it/didn't want to address because they couldn't think of a good reason for him not to do it.
There are no cops dead, Hans says "Just wound them" and despite the awesome explosion, the APC isn't actually penetrated or destroyed. But Hans needed this to turn into a standoff, a show of force would prevent a SWAT raid from expediting the deadline, he needed to get all of the hostages up on the roof to make his getaway downstairs, and executing a bunch of them would bring suspicion onto how cooperative he is (His plan to blow up the roof relies heavily on the police sending in choppers) they cooperate with him, which they won't do if they think Hans is a crazed lunatic who's only interested in more and more carnage, if he wounds the cops and only shows he can defend himself, and that he was being reasonable. The cops would play ball, and they would believe he's willing to spare the hostages lives, plus he always planned on taking one hostage as a contingency, if they thought they were gonna be killed they'd become a liability. Patton Oswalt talks of a real plothole though lol.
John McClane would know they'd kill him as soon as he shows up, as soon as he heard "We'll have to tell Karl that his brother is dead" he knew that all bets were off, he lost his chance to end it civil, if they had no personal connection to the first terrorist John kills then maybe putting 5 people into a room and doing an Air Force One on them would work, but not when John knows he'll be body number 6. Al says it best "If he gave himself up they'd both be dead" with Ellis execution, John watched them take control of the hostages, watched them execute the Takagi, and when the first Terrorist thinks he's found John he shoots first after saying "I promise I won't hurt you" and then taking his bag and realizing how well financed and equipped, these guys weren't domestic terrorists, they used serious money, serious contacts, and serious planning to get themselves into this building on this night. He knew the only way to play ball with them was fists and elbows.
Just because a character doesn't do a thing I doesn't make it a plot hole. The plot was that he didn't do it. You may consider a different approach "better" but that's irrelevant. You may as well try to argue that any character choice that doesn't fit with a perceived meta is a plot hole. It isn't, it's just the plot.
Answer: Hans Gruber needed the last vault lock to open by cutting off the electricity; he didn't want to escalate it further so that the FBI would start getting more aggressive. He needed them to play ball so he could make it seem like he's just a terrorist who martyrs himself and the hostages, and by the time they figured out he and his men aren't among the remains, they'll already have left in the basement with the ambulance. Shooting 5 people would have escalated it to the point that the FBI wouldn't play ball with him.
30th Oct 2017
Escape from Alcatraz (1979)
Question: Why didn't the tower guards spot Frank, and the Anglin brothers while they were in the water?
Answer: Because, in the context of the story, they are in pitch blackness. It is common film practice to illuminate night scenes that would otherwise be in total darkness, for the obvious reason that the audience needs to see what is happening; however, as far as the characters are concerned, there is no such light.
I meant during the real escape.
Same reason - it was dark.
30th Oct 2017
Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008)
Question: Why are the prisoners not allowed to talk to each other in Guantanamo bay? Is it to keep them from planning escapes?
Answer: The Guantanamo prisoners are all perceived terrorists, presumably working in coordination. It's essential that they not communicate with each other, so as to prevent them from leaking info about U.S. security.
I think it's also to prevent the prisoners from planning attacks on the guards.
How would they leak information about U.S. security? Most people in the Middle East have no knowledge about U.S. security.
Because people are occasionally released, and whether terrorists or not, may have information others would find valuable - about what goes on in Guantanamo Bay, if nothing else.
Answer: I guess it is more likely to be for the isolation feeling of not talking to anyone. It is like deprivation sleeping, some kind of psychological thing.
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: Galatea is not causing harm. Andrew and Portia are dying anyway, and all she does is let them. Any doctor would do the same, and they also make the same promise, to, if nothing else, do no harm. There's also the fact that Galatea is very much human at that point, so who knows if she is still held to those three laws?
Hello, this is a very good response, do you mind giving me a name to put this under so I can quote you in my research project. Thanks.
I'm afraid there's no way to attribute this comment to a specific person - it's about 10 years old and even if someone claimed it was theirs I couldn't confirm it.
Jon Sandys ★