26th Apr 2020
Oh, Brother, Where Are Thou? - S2-E15
Question: How exactly did the production of Homer's car bankrupt Herb? If Herb, as a highly successful car manufacturer, was spending so much money spoiling Marge and the kids that an $82,000 price tag for making a car was enough of a straw to break the camel's back, wouldn't he have gone bankrupt sooner than later anyway?
14th Oct 2019
Other mistake: When Jessie pops the tire on the RV, Bonnie's dad gets upset and says, 'I just bought it.' Throughout the rest of the film, however, he says the RV is a rental.
Suggested correction: Not exactly a mistake considering he bought a rental.
Suggested correction: At best it's a character mistake. As he was exasperated as Bonnie's mother says to her "Daddy's going to use some words" apparently meaning he was going to swear.
If it's a character mistake, it's still a mistake, so no correction is needed. I think it's a valid other mistake because it's the screen writers flipping back between owning and renting, but not an actual plot hole. I've been exasperated with a rental before and never in my anger or frustration said I bought the rented item.
25th Aug 2008
Character mistake: Sarah is a trained expert with predatory animals. But when her jacket is covered with blood (and not just any blood, the blood of the infant T-rex), and they're in a forest surrounded with carnivorous dinosaurs, and she knows that they need to pass through Velociraptor territory, and she thinks that the T-rex might follow them, she doesn't think to take the jacket off. And the others, who also happen to be hunters who would surely know that the blood would attract predators, don't say anything about it.
Suggested correction: While you are right, it's still not that much of a mistake because not only does it tie into the Butterfly Effect from the first movie, but also maybe Roland used it to his advantage, meaning an opportunity to shoot the Buck Rex since using its baby didn't work.
You're really grasping at straws on this one. The top priority for everyone at this point is to find safe shelter. A bunch of dinosaur experts aren't going to jeopardize that by allowing someone in their group to walk through dangerous territory with blood-soaked clothing, and Roland isn't going to risk the lives of other people to hunt the T-rex. This is just bad writing by the filmmakers, plain and simple.
What butterfly effect?
He's talking about when Ian Malcolm was explaining chaos theory and used the term "butterfly effect." But like Phaneron said, the person was really grasping as straws and this scene has nothing to do with what Malcom was talking about.
Suggested correction: I don't think this is actually a mistake. Yes Sarah's jacket is covered in blood from the baby T-Rex, but as you say they've got to pass through Velociraptor territory. In JP3 it was noted that the T-Rex pee keeps smaller dinosaurs away but actually attracts the Spinosaurus. The scent of the T-Rex blood could actually also have the same effect as the pee at keeping the smaller dinosaurs away.
8th Apr 2020
The Return of the Beast: Part 2 - S1-E2
Corrected entry: When Betty's Humvee breaks down in the middle of the desert, she gets out and steps over a scorpion. The scorpion is shown to have 10 legs (4 standard legs and 2 pincers). Scorpions have 8 legs.
Correction: A scorpion's pedipalps (their pincers) are not legs. Scorpions and other arachnids have 8 legs and 2 pedipalps.
17th Mar 2020
Question: Did this movie have some sort of point? That genocide of several million to prevent war was a good idea? That and how did they avoid being sued considering Batman's got an Owl Man, a Spider Woman was in existence before this spider super heroine and the white masked guy seems to be a take on The Question.
Answer: Why would they be sued? DC own both the DC comics properties and the Watchmen characters.
Answer: You forgot where DC ended up owning Captain Marvel claiming he was a Super Man ripoff and how Marvel sued the name away from the character.
Answer: There is no "spider super heroine" in this movie. Silk Spectre has no superpowers, so I'm not sure where you're getting the connection to Spider-Woman from. Watchmen is a DC property, as are Batman and The Question, who was acquired by DC several years before the Watchmen graphic novel was published, so there would be no plagiarism lawsuits in response. The point of the movie, much like the graphic novel it is based on, is to illustrate the dangers of nuclear tension and war, and how regular people pay the price of the actions of contentious governments.
And to show that someone who is supposedly super-smart is also usually super-insane.
Answer: I mean as in Bob Kane suing since Owl Man's sort of like Batman.
Bob Kane undoubtedly received royalties for creating Batman, but the character is owned by DC. It's not as if he had the right to start his own comic book company and take Batman away from DC, so even if he felt slighted by Nite Owl II having some similarities to Batman, he would have no legal grounds to sue for it. Furthermore, characters would have to be blatant ripoffs in many ways in order for comic book companies to be able to sue over. Marvel and DC have many characters that are similar in powers, appearance, etc, but those similarities are usually so superficial that they can be dismissed as homages or parodies and it would prove difficult for one company to sue the other over it. A really good example would be Deadpool who was practically created as a parody of Deathstroke. The only case I can think of where a lawsuit had enough merit to go to court was Marvel suing Awesome Entertainment for redesigning Fighting American into a shameless ripoff Captain America.
22nd Oct 2002
Revealing mistake: As soon as the three survivors are coming out of the lab through the hatch underwater, they all signal each other to rise to the top. Look at Saffron Burrows, her cheeks are full of air and you can almost see the surface above her head. You can also see the exact same shot when she is about to be eaten by the last shark. And what's with that hand gesture - to cut or for the shark to stop? (01:26:30 - 01:33:10)
Suggested correction: Her cheeks are like that because when we all take in a big breath of air and hold it so not to breathe, that's what happens. The hand gestures when she goes in the water is so the blood can mix with the water so the shark can smell it.
The hand gesture the entry is referring to is just before she is eaten by the shark, the actress waves her hand across her neck area, allegedly to indicate to the director that she was running out of air.
I think she is giving the shark a sign... like stop or don't attack or something like that. So I think she is giving the shark a sign because right after she does that the shark stops swimming towards her.
Maybe in the context of the film you could argue that, but for scenes in which actors are performing underwater, they use that gesture to let the director know they are running out of air.
If you look EXTREMELY closely in one shot with the girl at a close distance and the shark far away you can tell the girl is actually computer animated. So I think she is giving the shark a sign cuz right after she does that the shark stops swimming towards her. But I could be wrong... that's just what I think.
Yes, Saffron Burrows' character, Dr. Susan McAlester, used the hand gesture to lure the shark by mixing her blood in the water, rather than signalling that she was out of air. While she was holding her breath with puffy cheeks, this action demonstrated her intelligence and scientific understanding of shark behaviour. Her strategy aimed to draw the shark closer, allowing her colleagues a chance to kill it, even though it ultimately led to her tragic fate of being eaten.
Saffron Burrows' puffy-cheeked face is proof that both scenes were filmed in a real underwater environment and Burrows performed her own stunts underwater by holding her breath.
20th Jun 2006
She Loves Me, She Loves Me Not - S1-E13
Corrected entry: Topanga acts like she didn't know Eric was Cory's brother, but in later episodes, Topanga and Cory had known each other for practically their whole lives. How could Topanga have not known about Eric?
Correction: She didn't say "I don't know who Eric is" she probably just didn't recognize him. People can change a lot within a few years.
This correction isn't consistent with the way the scene and episode both play out. When Eric first shows up to talk to Cory and his classmates, Cory and Mr. Feeny both loudly announce his arrival by saying "Eric?" and "Mr. Matthews?" respectively, which elicits no immediate reaction from Topanga. Moments later when Mr. Feeny says "Please class, give Mr. Matthews your attention," a wide-eyed Topanga incredulously responds with "Matthews?", as if she didn't know Cory had a brother, despite Cory and Feeny both addressing Eric when he first arrived. This is further substantiated by Eric, who instead of responding with "Yeah Topanga, it's me Eric. Don't you recognize me?" says "Oh yeah, I'm Cory's older brother. I got the good hair." When Topanga shows up at their house the next day, Eric greets her with "Topanga, right?" and later says she's known him "for like 5 minutes," suggesting they had never met until the day before.
23rd Feb 2016
Other mistake: When The Town is singing the Christmas carol you can see Sideshow Bob, who was arrested and jailed in series 1. We know he hasn't been released, as that's a plot point over the show. (00:18:10)
Suggested correction: Maybe he was allowed to participate due to good behavior. That's a possibility.
Good behavior or not, a prison wouldn't furlough an inmate just so they could participate in a snow day.
I'm not sure if it's been discussed here or listed as a mistake. Part of the problem with "The Simpsons" and the Sideshow Bob character is that time both moves forward and doesn't move. In "A Brother From Another Series," Krusty visits the prison and tells Bob he hasn't seen him in years because Bob had been in prison all those years for his crimes. Yet Bart and Lisa are still the same age and in the same grade. Bob is also let out of prison on a work-release program in the episode.
30th Sep 2010
Corrected entry: When Cory's ball bounces into Feeny's yard, he climbs over it and is surprised to see Feeny when he flashes a light on him. Cory would literally have to be blind to not notice Mr. Feeny in his lawn chair.
Correction: Things like that happen in real life all the time. Especially in the dark. It's not at all unrealistic for Cory to have missed Mr. Feeny due to the fact that he wasn't looking for him. I recently walked right past a friend I was on my way to visit, purely because she wasn't where I was expecting her to be.
Feeny was sitting less than 5 feet away from where the ball landed and also would have been in Cory's field of view based on where the ball ended up and Feeny's position relative to it. The mistake is valid.
As the previous user mentioned above; ridiculous as it may appear to an audience watching, this happens a lot in real life. I myself missed my cousin who walked right past me only a foot in front of me and that was in broad daylight when I was actively looking for her. If this kind of thing happens in real life, it can easily happen with the character. Especially since it was night-time and Cory was not expecting Feeny to be there.
8th Jan 2020
Question: Hank bears no resemblance to his father, but strongly resembles his mother. Bobby bears no resemblance to Hank (or seemingly Peggy), but bears a strong resemblance to Hank's father. Is it actually possible for a person to bear such a strong resemblance to one of their Grandparents if they are only getting half their genes from that Grandparent's child and that child bears no resemblance to that particular parent?
Answer: It's also said genetics plays a part here. You can look like an ancestor more than a parent. I myself look nothing like either of mine nor do any of my 3 siblings: older brother, older sister, younger sister.
Chosen answer: The short answer is "yes", it is possible to resemble your Grandparent even if your parent doesn't resemble your Grandparent. The old adage is "it's not like mixing paint", meaning combining genes doesn't always get the same result. It's why full siblings don't always look exactly alike even though they have the same genetic makeup. I look next to nothing like my paternal grandmother but I have a child that greatly resembles her.
Is it a mistake then that Hank's Japanese half-brother strongly resembles him, and by extension Hank's mother, or is that still a small possibility?
Sort of. These are animated characters, and the style of animation isn't particularly detailed. The resemblance between the two is played up for laughs. But there are plenty of real life examples of people that aren't related at all but greatly resemble one another. Famous examples are Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Javier Bardem, or Will Ferrell and Chad Smith.
25th Feb 2020
Corrected entry: It's just a parody/absurd sequence, but it's odd that with over two dozen bullets shot from barely a dozen feet of distance, just a couple entry wounds appear on the body of the runaway Seinfeld. Of course no blood either, but that's a necessity given the type of show. (00:08:55)
Correction: It's a dream sequence. It doesn't have to follow the rules of reality. I frequently have dreams that logically make no sense.
I know, I know, but never been a big fan of giving a free pass to dream sequences for things like continuity, poor stunts etc. If anything, it'd get a pass because it's a comedy and violence and realism are toned down by default.
The very nature of dreams give them a free pass for just about anything. I will have dreams where I'm talking to a certain person or holding a certain object, and in the next moment the person will be someone else or the object will be something else. I have dreams where I am back in high school and the layout of the building will frequently change, or the class I go into will change subjects. If you put that to film, it would be a change in continuity.
What you say is true for dream sequences played specifically with the purpose to give the viewer a sense of disorientation, experience something obviously 'off', a deliberately disjointed and creative scenario that breaks reality. As I said, I am not a fan of being unable to nitpick scenes or even movies who happen all in someone's head for trivial mistakes that are not something as amazingly obvious as the ones you explained. Your examples are something the viewer would notice and would register as deliberate choice and part of the plot, but Seinfeld wearing earbuds or 2 gunshot wounds instead of a dozen are not really something I can put in the same category. If the dream scene is played 'straight', as that one has been, I don't believe we have to just assume that any take can be edited together since continuity is not an issue, props and tricks can be visible or act weird because who knows what can happen in a dream, etc.
You make a fair point (which is also why I didn't submit a correction for your separate entry of Jerry wearing ear protection). However, the basis of this submission is that Jerry only has a couple entry wounds and no bleeding after being shot numerous times. That can just be chalked up to how his mind dreamed the scenario. I don't think a sense of disorientation or something being off needs to be established (especially when the sequence is played for laughs) for viewers to accept details like that can suddenly change within a dream since we all dream and understand that those things happen.
Not necessarily "established" but "with purpose", which can be seen in hindsight. Anything can happen in a dream, but if he imagined to be shot in such a dramatic fashion so many times and die, the fact that he dies with a cheap effect is hardly serving any narrative purpose. Again, I could see why ultimately the mistake could be seen as stating the obvious since "the scene is played for laughs", which was my first caveat posting the scene, the last being the lack of blood for censorship purposes. They didn't thoroughly cover Jerry Seinfeld with squibs and things like that just for a gag - explanation of the 'mistake' rather than justification, but fair. But as far as the dream goes, the point of that dream scene is to do something more 'violent' and unexpected than you'd see in the 'real life' scenes, not tone it down through a marginal detail that has a clear explanation.
9th Jul 2014
Question: How did Thomas and Kimberly die?
Chosen answer: In the alternate ending of Final Destination 3, a newspaper blows by, revealing Kimberly and Burke ran into each other at a hardware store and a Camaro (belonging to Evan) ran through the store, knocking them into a nearby woodchipper. Kimberly's coat was tangled and was snatched into the machine. Burke attempted to save her, and both were dismembered.
Answer: No, Thomas wouldn't have died first because it was explained that Death was going backwards since everyone that died in the first movie made some people miss their death date, so he had to tie up the loose ends.
8th Jan 2020
Corrected entry: Characters that are supposed to be blood relatives, but have no familial resemblance.
Correction: Blood relatives do not always resemble each other.
That's not really a "common mistake", though since it's never a mistake to have blood relatives that do not resemble each other.
I mostly agree. Family members often look too different to be biologically related. Even if an effort is made, for example, to have a son look like his father, some things don't sync - like a different face shape/bone structure or skin tone (not due to tanning). One example of father/son dissimilarities are in The War of the Worlds - the boy playing Tom Cruise's son has a completely different facial shape/structure. Regarding skin tone, in Boyhood the sister of Mason has a different skin tone than the rest of the family - and it stands out.
I'm probably a bit sensitive to this since my family members don't all have a strong resemblance to each other, but it's absolutely possible, especially if your family tree is diverse in genetics/ appearance. It happens more often than not in movies, but it's not a mistake. (And who's to say that in many of these cases people weren't adopted?).
27th Jan 2020
When I was a little kid I checked out a Batman graphic novel from the library. It had a lot of his rogues gallery in it, most if not all of whom were killed in it. I specifically remember Catwoman being shot and her dying words were along the lines of "Batman, I'm so cold." Batman then kissed her before she died. Does anyone know what the name of this graphic novel/storyline is?
Answer: All Stars #17?
Based on my Google search results, "All-Star Batman" is a more recent publication. The year I read the book in question was probably 1993, so it was probably published in the late 80s or early 90s.
I believe the answer should have been DC Super-Stars #17. That issue features the death of the Earth Two Selina Kyle as part of the origin story of her daughter, Helena Kyle (The Huntress).
That's not it either, unfortunately. I specifically remember Killer Croc being in this, because it was the first time I ever heard of him, and he didn't debut until 1983, six years after DC Superstars #17. I think Batman killed Joker at the end out of revenge for Catwoman. With so many other characters being killed in it, I'm pretty certain it was an Elseworld story and not connected to whatever the main DC universe is or was at the time.
8th Oct 2018
Question: How did Venom know about The Sandman trying to save his daughter?
Answer: Sandman is a fugitive who is on the run. It is more than likely that his name has appeared in the news at some point. His daughter and her illness would likely have also been mentioned as well. Seeing as how Eddie worked at the Daily Bugle, it shouldn't have took long for him to put two and two together.
25th Jan 2020
Question: Are lightsabers capable of cutting through any substance, or are there objects in the franchise (even if the examples are no longer canon) that have been specifically mentioned as being resistant?
Answer: There are several substances in canon and non-canon that are resistant to lightsabers. Beskar, also known as Mandalorian iron or Mandalorian steel was used to make armor and weapons by the Mandalorian people. Cortosis was an ore that, when heavily refined, stopped lightsaber blades and blaster bolts. Phrik was another metal, used in Darth Sidious' lightsabers and the electrostaffs used by Grievous' robot guards. Neuranium was a very, very dense and heavy metal that was partially resistant to lightsabers, but was more often used to shield from scanners. The species orbalisk and vonduun crab had carapaces that could withstand the blow of a lightsaber.
Answer: The Force Awakens features stormtroopers using the "Z6 riot control baton", which they use to block the lightsaber when Finn uses it.
Is it the baton itself that is resistant, or the energy surge around it? Because I know Snoke's guards were able to block lightsabers with energized weapons as well.
Yes you see them in Episode III as well when fighting on the bridge of the chancellor's ship. My guess is the energy blocks the lightsaber. It's logical they would come up with some sort of technology to block lightsabers if materials that can block them are that rare.
Answer: There are a handful of items, but I don't believe any have been mentioned or shown in the film series (other than another lightsaber itself). Mandalorian Iron (also known as Beskar) and Phrix are resistant to lightsaber attacks and have been mentioned in the TV show "Star Wars: The Clone Wars", but I don't recall if their resistance is specifically mentioned in the show.
8th Oct 2019
Question: Ben surrenders the Declaration of Independence, and the treasure's location, in exchange for not going prison. In real life, would surrendering the Declaration and the treasure's location be enough to convince the FBI to let him off the hook, or would he still go to prison?
Answer: It's doubtful anyone would be completely "off the hook" for stealing the Declaration of Independence and also receive a percentage of the treasure's worth, even if they revealed the location.
11th Sep 2017
Factual error: Nivea Soft Cream is on the shelves at the chemist - this did not exist in 1989, when the film is set.
Suggested correction: I think the date is subject to debate. The only thing we really have to go on is it's 2019 in chapter 2, and It comes back every 27 years which would be 1992.
The date is not subject to debate. The marquee on the movie theater is advertising both "Batman" and "Lethal Weapon 2," placing the movie in the summer of 1989.
There is no debate about the date. After the title card it says "June 1989." The opening scene took place "October 1988."
5th Sep 2011
Corrected entry: Batman couldn't possibly have his own credit card. Obtaining a credit card requires proof of identification and a billing address, neither of which Batman would submit for obvious reasons. Nor would it be a credit card that he issued himself through Wayne Enterprises because the credit card company would see that a Wayne Enterprises Corporate credit card was used at a charity event that was attended by Batman and would subsequently reveal his secret identity (not to mention that Batman intends on using the card for a $7 million purchase, which is not a price anyone is going to turn a blind eye to), which is not something Batman would risk. And although the Bat-credit card may be a jokey reference to the 60s TV series, Batman still demonstrates his intent on using the card to secure his bid for a date with Poison Ivy, which means that in the context of the film, the credit card is functional.
Correction: Granted that the movie takes place in the real-time calendar year 1997; keep in mind that major federal banking laws were not enforced too seriously at the time, plus this was the time way before the USA Patriot Act was created and strictly enforced after the September 11 terrorist attacks. I can understand that even if Bruce Wayne did manage to have his own bank and provided a line of credit to Batman still like everyone else he had to submit to US federal banking laws (FCRA, ECOA and the like.) Let alone the general public will find it too suspicious why a private citizen would give a line of credit to a superhero in the first place. Either way, it's all within the DC World fantasy.
I would be too young to remember, but prior to online shopping, weren't people usually required to present their ID when making a credit card purchase? When I had my first job, if someone was making a purchase with the credit card, our boss required us to check their ID. I mean, if I was holding a fundraiser and someone pledged $1 million, I would want them to provide valid ID in case they decided to welch on the payment.
7th Jan 2013
Plot hole: Hock sneaks a gun into the prisoner interrogation area because he is told that guns are not allowed there. If the prison was so strict about keeping guns out of that area then they would surely have metal detectors to prevent such a thing from happening. (00:15:25)
Suggested correction: Not a plot hole at all. Most of the people who are allowed in those areas will be government employees, who will be deemed trusted enough to follow the rules.
Answer: It wasn't the cost of one car, but that they'd produced thousands of Homer's ridiculous vehicles, which they'd marketed as a family car, but cost five times as much as a new car at the time. No one would buy them and the company went under.
Brian Katcher
Wasn't the car just a demo though? How would they have been able to produce thousands of cars in such a short amount of time?
Phaneron ★
Herb had given instructions to his team to build whatever Homer wants, thinking it would be a success. More than likely the plant produced the one seen while production continued on the rest. Herb had too much faith in Homer and his ideas.
Ssiscool ★
Big difference between a "demo" or prototype car compared to a launch car. The dealers must have stock available of the launch car so people can actually buy them straight away.
stiiggy