Question: What is the symbol on Saddam Hussein's pajamas?
Phaneron
20th Jul 2021
Hot Shots Part Deux (1993)
12th Jul 2021
Black Widow (2021)
Question: Spoilers! The woman who Yelena kills at the start isn't seen hugely, but bears a passing resemblance to Olga Kurylenko, who's in the opening credits but isn't actually seen until nearly the end of the film. Does anyone know if this was a deliberate choice to misdirect more casting-savvy viewers as to the part she actually plays, or am I misremembering, and the woman at the start doesn't look much like her at all?
Chosen answer: Are you talking about the woman who has the mind control antidote that ends up freeing Yelena from the Red Room's control? She's a rogue ex-Widow named Oksana played by martial artist and stunt coordinator Michelle Lee.
That's her. It's only a semi-resemblance, but was close enough that I basically assumed if that was Olga Kurylenko she'd had her role cut down, or was a cameo, or might appear in flashbacks. Either way I didn't spend the film thinking "when's Olga Kurylenko showing up?", and anyone asking that of themselves presumably might figure out who was playing Taskmaster before the big reveal. I might just be overthinking it of course. :-).
I actually thought it might have been Olga Kurylenko at first as well.
9th Jul 2021
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Question: I'm sure I missed it but, why did Mary Jane turn down Peter's proposal?
Answer: Because he was letting his career as Spider-man become more important than her. They way he milked the crowd and kissed Gwen the same way she kissed him, from the first movie, when the city honoured him.
Answer: In Spider-Man 2, Harry Osborne discovered Peter Parker's secret identity. He was waiting for the right opportunity to use that information. When he saw how much in love Peter and Mary Jane were, that's when he threatened to expose him to the world, if she didn't break up with him.
Not that scene. It's the scene where Bruce Campbell has his cameo as the maitre'd and Mary Jane was angry at Peter.
16th Mar 2021
X-Men (1992)
Corrected entry: When Sabretooth is pushing Wolverine's claws back towards him, Wolverine desperately struggles to keep his claws away from his face. Instead of struggling to keep the claws away, Wolverine could have simply retracted them and get out of danger.
Correction: It should also be pointed out that there really was no reason for him to retract his claws. In some shots you can tell the claws weren't that close to his face, he was just struggling to get Sabretooth off him. What would Wolverine care if his claws scratched him? He already rips holes in his hands every time he extends his claws, so a scratch or hole in his face wouldn't matter when he can heal.
Correction: If Sabretooth is squeezing Wolverine's arms hard enough, then it's possible that the muscles are too tensed up to allow him to retract claws back into his arms.
This is only a theory. Theories never resolve mistakes.
Then by that same token, the entry isn't a valid mistake because it's worded as a question. Also, theories can and do resolve mistakes if the mistake in question is a subjective observation of a character decision.
Nothing suggests that his muscles are too tensed up. For many viewers it is too confusing that he didn't simply retract his claws.
25th Jun 2021
General questions
I once saw part of a movie I think from the 1980's that featured Christopher McDonald, and I believe he was in a club looking for his son, and I think there was also a man in the club that had a really tall mohawk. Anyone know the name of the movie?
Chosen answer: Maybe "Conflict of Interest"? That came out in 1993.
That's the one. I looked up the movie on YouTube, and luckily the entire thing was uploaded, and I was able to find the scene I was describing, though it appears the guy with the mohawk didn't have it styled straight up, but was parted. Interesting that it came out in 1993, because the hairstyles and wardrobe for the film definitely have an 80's vibe to them.
20th Nov 2019
Knowing (2009)
Other mistake: He says his wife died in a hotel fire at 4 am, and then says he was blowing leaves when she died. Who blows leaves at 4 in the morning?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: His wife died at 4 am in Phoenix, Arizona, while he was in Boston, Massachusetts.
9th Jan 2019
The Avengers (2012)
Question: How did Loki know that it was Natasha who brought Bruce onto the Helicarrier?
Answer: He doesn't mean her, he means them, the Avengers, they have brought the Hulk on board.
When Natasha calls Loki a monster, he responds, "No, love, you brought the monster."
And with the "you" he refers to the Avengers, not her specifically.
Actually, it was Natasha who brought Bruce. She had been informed by Coulson that she was specifically requested to bring Bruce with her so Loki's comment "You brought the monster" was accurate.
10th Jun 2021
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
Character mistake: When Ethan Thomas objects to Dr. Adanie's testimony, he does so on the grounds of "silliness." Silliness does not fall under the federal rules of evidence, and any lawyer worth their salt would know this.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: During the Manson trial in real life, the prosecutor objected to a completely pointless question the defense asked a witness on the grounds of being ridiculous. The judge agreed and sustained the question. In his book Helter Skelter, Bugliosi even acknowledges there's no such rule, but the judge sided with him. The prosecutor in this film is grasping at straws, since nothing that would fall under the rules of evidence would apply to his objecting to her scientific testimony.
Not true, he can object on the grounds of relevance. The YouTube channel Legal Eagle, which is run by an actual lawyer, even stated so. The same logic applies to the Manson trial. If a lawyer feels that a question is ridiculous, they can object on the grounds of relevance.
In a case involving demonic possession as a central aspect of the defense, there's no way relevance could be grounds to object to her testimony. Her testimony dealt with possession from a scientific point of view, but he objected because it was for the defense. The judge in the film even allowed her testimony stating that they'd heard a lot of scientific evidence supporting the prosecution's case and it was fair to hear from an 'exorcism expert'.
As for the Manson case, try reading the book written by the prosecutor. It even states in the transcripts that he objected on the grounds of a question being ridiculous (even if, in the end, it would actually be relevance).
Just because a lawyer in real life was able to successfully object on the grounds of ridiculousness doesn't mean it would suddenly become a good practice. That would be like saying basketball players should just wantonly heave half court shots, because sometimes they go in. The premise of your suggested correction was also that the lawyer had no legal grounds to object on, and that is objectively false. As I mentioned, the lawyer behind the LegalEagle YouTube channel even said otherwise.
24th May 2021
Equilibrium (2002)
Question: Why would they need to authenticate the Mona Lisa painting at the beginning? Wouldn't a replica yield the same punishment for whomever is in possession of it?
Answer: They need to know they got the real one because that is the one that is so revered and protected. Not a replica.
Answer: I'm not sure who "they" refers to, so I'm giving a general answer. They need to ascertain the monetary value of the painting in order to know how to proceed. Obviously, an authentic painting (perhaps worth millions of dollars) has a much greater value (selling price) than a fake painting (which could be produced at a small fraction of the cost plus would not hold the same cultural or historical significance). The "punishment" (sentence) that could be imposed may vary with jurisdiction, type of sentencing system, monetary value, and the offender's prior criminal record (if any). Although it may be possible somewhere for the replica to carry the same punishment that is attached to the authentic painting, the extreme difference in value between the two paintings is likely to separate them into different classifications or grades of the offense (felony/misdemeanor or grand/ petit larceny). In general, the grand theft of an authentic painting worth millions carries a heavier sentence.
The plot of this film is that all emotions have been outlawed, as are anything that can stir up emotions (art, literature, music, etc.) Anyone that violates this law is put to death. So someone that has a replica of the Mona Lisa would be executed just the same as someone that has the real thing. Monetary value doesn't factor into the equation, because the police force in the film incinerates all contraband.
Thanks for explaining why my general answer does not apply and is thereby "dead wrong." I know I saw "Equilibrium" but I didn't remember anything about it; it obviously didn't have a lasting impression on me. I should have at least looked it up before giving a general answer. Now I am wondering what the specific answer is... Good question.
13th Apr 2021
Blue Streak (1999)
Question: How is it that Carlson can know that Miles hid the diamond in the police station, but not know what Miles looks like?
Answer: He most likely noticed a lot of weird stuff and started piecing it together. Like Miles having an obsession with the ventilation system, Tulley shouting Miles over and over again down the alley and again when he says Logan owes him $50,000. He'd be able to access police records and see that Miles Logan was arrested inside that very building whilst it was still under construction but the diamond wasn't on him... At this point, it wouldn't take much to figure out what was happening and who he was.
11th Dec 2017
Saw V (2008)
Question: The second trap, they had to break jars open that were on the ceiling and get into the safety chambers, but there were "only three" for four people... Those were some pretty long, tall chambers. Couldn't the two smallest people share a single chamber, and all four survive? Especially since they look tall enough for two people to lie down right on top of each other.
Answer: That was the entire point of the trap. Each trap in the overall game was meant for them to all work together. The tape for this trap asks "Who will be the odd man out?" They took this to mean that one person had to remain outside the chambers, but what it really meant was two people would each share a chamber (assuming all five survived the first trap) and one person would occupy the third chamber all by themselves. Charles realised this and tried to tell everyone, but was unfortunately killed by the explosion before he could.
Nope actually he said who of you 4 has to die...how he knew was 4 survivors?
He does not say that at all. The exact wording is "With only three points of safety, which of you will be the odd man out?" At no point does the tape say that one of them has to die. That would be completely contradictory to the point that the five of them were supposed to work together to safely get through every trap.
Not what he meant. He knows human nature is survival at the expense of someone else. He set the trap so all could survive, but he knows the panic and self-preservation will lead the group to sacrifice someone.
10th May 2003
Space Jam (1996)
Corrected entry: Can someone explain how the hell the bulldog gets into the cupboard in the scene where Bugs and Daffy are searching for Michael's shorts? It was in the kennel when Daffy burrowed into it, the front door was closed so it couldn't have got in that way, and if it followed them up the tunnel, how exactly did it get into the cupboard (which was also closed) without them seeing it?
Correction: The same way Michael Jordon's arm streched across the court. Things like that happen in cartoons, even if the people are not cartoons themselves.
The scene in question takes place in Michael Jordan's house in the real world, not the cartoon world.
But it does involve Daffy and Bugs. And Daffy already had an encounter with the dog and somehow escaped from it. Basically, the dog got the role of a cartoon character by being involved with cartoon characters. It's also their movie, so their rules.
7th May 2021
Friends (1994)
The One With The Embryos - S4-E12
Character mistake: When they are about to start the game, Ross declares that "the first team to answer the most questions wins." This is a nonsensical statement. By that logic, the first team to answer a question correctly would be the winner. It should be either the team that has correctly answered the most questions at the end of the game wins, or the first team to correctly answer an X number of questions.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While it's a weird way for him to say it, he starts by saying "each team will answer ten questions", so no, the first team to answer a question wouldn't win.
Yes, he qualified that it was a 10-question game, and we as the audience understand going in how the winner is decided. It's just the way he declared how the winner would be decided didn't make sense. It would be like watching an NBA game, and before tipoff, the crew chief tells both teams that the first team to score the most baskets wins. We know what the rules of an NBA game are, but the referee makes a nonsensical statement all the same.
Except there's so many variations of how a team can win a game; best 3 out of 5, win by 2, or a game can even end in a tie. Since this isn't a professional sport where all the players know how a game ends, Ross is basically saying after 10 rounds, if there is a tie, it will go to sudden death with the team with the first correct answer winning, just not in so many words.
6th May 2021
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Question: How did Quicksilver manage to get the arcade game, the table tennis and what looks like a sound system in the basement? They are very heavy and even with his speed would be impossible to move.
Answer: There could be a basement door, so he wouldn't need the stairs, and with a hand truck, even the heavier objects would be easy to move.
He's able to move several people out of the Mansion when it is destroyed, so perhaps his powers allow him to move things that big quickly. He can also push a cart or trolley at speed, remember.
Answer: He doesn't have to steal the actual heavy items, he can steal money and buy the heavy items and have them delivered. His mother is a single parent so it wouldn't be very difficult for him to arrange delivery of items while she is working. Mom also appears to be completely aware of Peter's crimes and doesn't really seem all that concerned.
And his mother wouldn't have found that suspicious? Or the movers? He's a teenager.
His mother seemingly already knows that he steals stuff. It's her house after all. She thinks the heroes are the police when they first show up to talk to him, and she visits him in the basement in the next film, and would have seen all the stuff he has down there. As for the movers, I used to work for a moving company, and not once did we ever ask a customer where they acquired something we were moving. They would be there to do a job.
That totally doesn't make any sense. The idea is that he stole these items. Would he call a moving company to steal an arcade game out of an arcade hall? How does he get the arcade game in the first place? Does he leave it on the curb of the arcade hall (or shop) so they can pick it up and drop it off at his house?
He most likely stole money and legit bought all those things. He likely helps his mother with the bills and stuff, so she doesn't ask him how he does it. Pietro is not known to be some master criminal with bad character, so he likely doesn't steal from ordinary people. The way he broke Magneto out of the prison, it seems he knows his way around a vault.
How he gets the arcade game is another question entirely. Maybe he stole it from a gas station or a restaurant that was near an apartment complex, but was still far from his home, and arranged to have it picked up at the apartment complex, so it would look like he lived there and was moving it to a new place. Alternatively, he could have had friends help him load it onto a truck.
26th Mar 2009
Watchmen (2009)
Question: I don't quite understand why Dr. Manhattan had to kill Rorschach. That is, I don't quite get why that was the only solution. Rorschach was a valuable member of the Watchmen, and in the type of world they were in (chaos, corruption, murder, etc) one would think that they would want to keep as many of themselves banded together as possible. Couldn't some sort of negotiation or compromise have been reached/agreed to by Rorschach instead of him being killed?
Answer: He has spent years as a costumed vigilante despite the fact that it was illegal. He has a very strict idea of what is right ("never compromise") and has proven himself incapable of doing otherwise. So no, there was no real chance of negotiating with him - Rorschach himself made it clear he'd have to die if they wanted his silence.
Death was not the only choice. Doc M could easily have teleported/banished Rorschach to Mars/anywhere secluded in an oxygen bubble. He could have spared his life and just made him mute or manipulate his brain chemistry/atoms to remove the memory of what happened. The point is Doc M is all powerful and could manipulate matter at his whim; death was just a plot device creating a chance of an emotive martyrdom/sacrificial ending.
Ethically speaking, exiling him to Mars or erasing his memory of the event can be considered just as cruel as killing him, because then his agency is being taken away from him. Rorshach's malcontent with the situation poses a problem for the other heroes, and since Dr. Manhattan isn't willing to let him tell the truth of what happened, he obliges Rorschach's demand that he kill him instead.
4th Dec 2015
The X-Files (1993)
Revealing mistake: The establishing shot of Boston General Hospital at The End of the episode shows the same porte-cochère that was used for the BYU Medical Center in Provo, Utah eight episodes earlier in "Roadrunners." It appears they just digitally inserted this portion of the building over different facades. (00:40:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: These are two different porticos. The columns in the Boston picture show concentric grooves, and the fascia on the front of the roof structure is smooth and rounded. The Provo portico has smooth columns and the front fascia is composed of flat rectangular panels. In both pictures the porticos seem to be well-matched to the building structure and landscaping. It's unlikely that the production would have gone to the considerable expense (in the 1990's!) of a digital enhancement.
I could have worded the entry better, but while it's not the exact same portico, it appears to be the same building, but different entrances. The two structures have the exact same kind of writing on the right side and the overall design of the structures is remarkably similar, with some subtle differences in the columns and fascia, as you pointed out. Seems highly Improbable that a building in Boston and another in Utah that are not supposed to be affiliated with each other would look so alike.
It's also worth pointing out that the shot of the BYU Medical Center from Roadrunners showed the Kansas state flag flying outside the building, suggesting that the crew either had stock footage of the building, or they happened to be in Kansas and filmed the building in question. It's highly unlikely they went to the effort to find stock footage or actually went to a different building with a similar looking portico for the sole purpose of using it as an establishing shot of a different hospital in another episode.
After studying the photos again, I would have to agree that it is probably the same building, probably with an addition added to closely match the original construction. As to the improbability of two hospital architectures being so similar, I would reply that this may be common. I had occasion in the 90s to visit a hospital in East Lansing Michigan and later one in Alexandria Virginia that were virtually identical and owned by different health care systems.
10th Feb 2006
Batman Begins (2005)
Corrected entry: When Rachel and Bruce are talking about how Bruce wanted to kill the guy who killed his father, Rachel slaps his face several times. His hair goes from falling to the front of his face to back just as perfectly as it was before repeatedly without it ever becoming messed up at all.
Correction: She only slaps his face twice, not several times, and his hair moves accordingly.
The entry is correct. After she slaps Bruce for a second time, he has a lock of hair over his left eyebrow. The camera then briefly cuts to Rachel, then cuts back to Bruce, and the lock of hair is now pointed towards his ear. Then after Rachel says "Your father would be ashamed of you," the lock of hair is now over his eyebrow again.
7th Jan 2004
Batman Forever (1995)
Corrected entry: The big question at the end of the film - Does Edward Nygma know who Batman really is? Once they see that Nygma is crazy everyone is confident that Batman's real identity is a secret. Unfortunately, they don't take into account Two-Face's large team of henchmen who stormed Wayne Manor, all of whom (presumably) now know that Bruce Wayne is Batman. Less than half of them were captured by Batman's underwater net, leaving several to spread the word of Bruce Wayne's secret identity.
Correction: While they did indeed storm Wayne's home, Nygma was the only one to actually find and enter the Batcave. There's a decent chance that none of the henchmen were aware that they were necessarily attacking Batman's home, just some billionaire playboy.
Sugar and Spice knew Batman's secret. They were in the room at the end when the Riddler asked Batman if he and Bruce Wayne could ever coexist, as well as when he referred to Chase as being the love of Bruce's life. The movie acts like all loose ends are tied up, when they certainly were not.
Correction: The novelization reveals that Sugar and Spice escaped Gotham to avoid being captured.
2nd Nov 2017
Goosebumps (1995)
Welcome To Camp Nightmare (2) - S1-E6
Other mistake: At the end of the episode, Billy's parents tell him that they are taking him to a dangerous place called Earth and then direct his attention towards the sky where Earth is visible in high detail in broad daylight of the atmosphere of whatever planet they are on. If Earth is visible in such great detail, and at daytime no less, then there is no way Billy could not have already been familiar with it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The character is aware that the earth is in the sky, just not that he was being trained for a mission.
There's a difference between noticing an object in the sky and not being familiar with a prominent object in the sky. The show is implying that Billy knows nothing about Earth when his parents point it out to him and tell him it's "a place called Earth." This would be like someone on Earth seeing the Moon almost every night of their life and then not knowing any basic thing about it, including its name, until they were a teenager.
22nd Mar 2021
The Incredible Hulk (1996)
Question: Why does General Ross keep trying to kill Hulk?
Answer: The Hulk is a giant brute who smashes everything in his path when he is angry. In Ang Lee's "Hulk," General Ross, played by Sam Elliot, explains it to his daughter.
Answer: Because he feels the Hulk is a threat to all life on Earth, and particularly his daughter's close relationship with Bruce Banner puts her at risk when Hulk enters the equation.
Why does Ross think the hulk is a threat?
Because the Hulk is nearly mindless and goes on destructive rampages with high risk of collateral damage.
If that's the case, what's the problem with the way general Ross judges the hulk?
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.
Chosen answer: It appears to be his initials "SH" in the style of the New York Yankees "NY" logo. He's also wearing pinstriped pajamas that look like the Yankees uniform.
Bishop73
I was expecting it to be some kind of Arabic symbol, but I can see the initials now, and it fits his character.
Phaneron ★