Question: At the start, why does Tango empty his gun (of unused cartridges) and reload with different bullets before shooting the tanker? Unless I missed something, it's never explained.
Bishop73
6th Jan 2017
Tango & Cash (1989)
Answer: It's not specified, but I would suspect that he changed from a .38 Special to a .357 round or something. You can shoot a .38 Special out of a .357 Magnum gun and maybe for the movie they wanted to add a shot of him doing a reload to a higher power cartridge for the effect. Why anyone with a .357 Magnum gun would routinely carry a .38 Special round is beyond me.
It is common to carry .38 special rounds in a .357 carry revolver to reduce the risk of over penetration and target reacquisition. In a nutshell, .38 is a self defense round while .357 is a hunting or combat round.
14th Apr 2020
Jack (1996)
Other mistake: Jack's parents were at a Halloween party when his mother went into labor. Later in the movie when he's asked by his teacher he says his birthday is September 12th.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The movie doesn't specifically say this is a Halloween party. This may simply be a costume party which can and do happen multiple times a year.
As you stated, it doesn't say it's a Halloween party. In fact, there's signs in the room that say "Beaux-Arts Ball."
4th Jan 2019
The Terminator (1984)
Question: How exactly do both the Terminator and Kyle find addresses? We are led to believe that is the reason for the phone books, but none of the addresses in the phone books match up to the addresses where either the first Sarah is killed, nor the apartment of our Sarah.
Answer: My two cents: The T-800 Terminator does indeed, rip out the page of a phonebook for the address, but remember, he was looking for any and all Sarah Connors, not a specific address. He did not know which Sarah would give birth to John Connor, so by process of elimination he began terminating any woman with the name Sarah Connor. He did plug the first Sarah Connor (a housewife), then went to kill the other Sarah Connors in the phone book.
I already gave that answer, but apparently that's not what the question is asking.
Answer: Gonna be totally honest... that might just be nothing more than a simple continuity error. They accidentally made a phonebook prop that didn't match up with the locations where they shot, and assumed most people wouldn't notice or care. (And to be even more honest, I never noticed it until I saw this question today.)
Answer: Both the T-800 and Kyle look up Sarah's address in the phonebook and it's Kyle who rips out a page. Neither uses a police computer; that's the T-1000 in Terminator 2.
But that doesn't answer the question (and it's already been mentioned) since the information in the phonebook appears wrong.
Answer: Kyle, as we are shown, uses a police computer to find the addresses. The T800 just uses the phonebook as you mentioned. He rips the page out and takes it with him.
Except 2 of the addresses in the phone book don't match. So how does the Terminator find them using the phonebook?
The Terminator is just blindly killing everyone in the phone book whose name is Sarah Connor (apparently a common name). Process of elimination. So, the day he arrives, unrelated women named Sarah Connor start dropping like flies, and the police believe it's the work of a serial killer. Our heroine Sarah Connor barely escapes this sweeping extermination by sheer luck and Kyle's intervention.
You just described the plot. Were you trying to answer the question? Because the question still stands. (As it is, it's either a mistake or plot hole in the film).
Perhaps I'm not getting the question. What is meant by "none of the addresses in the phone books match up"? Match up to what, the murder scene addresses? I wasn't aware that the murder scene addresses were prominently displayed.
Exactly. The addresses seen don't match. Specifically the first Sarah Connor's house number is "14239", but in the phonebook it is listed as "1823." And the real Sarah Connor lives in an apartment but the phonebook doesn't list an apartment number.
Perhaps though this all doesn't matter because phone books can quickly become outdated, the phone book he found could be over a year old. Someone moves but can still be listed in the phone book with their old address. He could have gone to the addresses but found someone else living there and then asked where the previous owner might be, and he was told (or he forced them). This might be how he found all the Sarah Connors.
Are any of the Sarah's listed as living at 1823? I've not got access to the film right now to check.
The first is listed as "1823." The second is "2816." The 3rd is "309." Although after reviewing the scene and thinking about it, for "309" (which is supposedly our Sarah J Connor), the full address isn't actually seen and the apartment number could have been listed.
Reese never uses a police computer; that's the T-1000 in Terminator 2. He rips out the page from the phonebook. The T800 also uses the phonebook but is never shown ripping out a page.
16th Jul 2015
That '70s Show (1998)
Punk Chick - S1-E22
Continuity mistake: When Eric and Hyde are talking, while on Hyde's front porch, they talk about painting a pot leaf on the Water Tower before Hyde leaves to New York, but they already did it in the previous episode, "The Water Tower." (00:17:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This episode (production code 120) was filmed before the "Water Tower" episode (production code 123). It was just aired out of order. If you watch it in the right order, there is no mistake.
Suggested correction: Eric said, "Do you remember when we painted the pot leaf on the Water Tower?" Hyde said, "Vandalism isn't a good reason to stay." Eric said, "We wouldn't do it without him, meaning vandalism."
That's not what was said at all. Eric said, "Remember? We were gonna paint that pot leaf on the Water Tower?" Hyde then says, "You can do that without me."
4th Apr 2002
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Corrected entry: In Erin's son's bedroom he has a poster for the movie Jurrasic Park, but Jurrasic Park had not even come out from when the movie Erin Brockovich was set.
Correction: Loads of people seem to think that the movie's set in the mid-80's, which just isn't the case. The events of the film took place in the early 90's (check out http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich.htm), and so a Jurassic Park poster isn't at all out of place.
Jurassic Park, the movie, came out in 1993, which is when all of the merchandise came out. The plot of Erin Brockovich ends in 1992. Some parts of Erin Brockovich probably did take place in the late 80s, depending on how long she spent on her research.
The film starts in 1993. That's when she starts her investigation. She gets fired in July of '93. PG&E settled in 1996.
28th Jan 2024
Saltburn (2023)
Factual error: This is set in summer 2007 but they watch Superbad (released August 2007) on DVD.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The movie actually takes place in 2006. Superbad coming out in 2007 was correct.
Do a word change if the mistake is valid. Not a correction.
The movie starts in late 2006, then Oliver is invited to spend the summer (2007) with Felix, where the bulk of the movie takes place.
22nd Nov 2005
Night Court (1984)
Question: In one of the episodes, it's discovered that Dan's name isn't really Dan Fielding. What is his real name?
Answer: Reinhold. As soon as this name is revealed (during the episode with all the pregnant women giving birth) all of the cast repeat the name incredulously. This is a tribute to Reinhold Weege, the creator of Night Court.
It should be noted that Dan's real name isn't revealed to the others until s05e12, "Dan, the Walking Time Bomb." In the episode with the pregnant women (s03e22), only the audience knows that Benet named her baby after Dan's real name. When Ernie reveals Dan's real name, the group reacts in the same way, saying "Reinhold" in unison.
27th Aug 2001
Beavis and Butthead Do America (1996)
Continuity mistake: There are no bongos in the song "Love Rollercoaster", yet in the casino scene in the movie where the song is played, the band has a bongo player. (00:19:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's not unusual to add extra instruments on live performances. Sometimes whole orchestras are added in rock songs when performed live.
The RHCP version heard/used has no bongos. And it's not a live version, nor have they ever performed the song live.
1st May 2004
Ten Commandments (1956)
Other mistake: In the Bible, Moses had two sons, not one (Gershom) as depicted in the film. He had both sons in Midian before he came back to Egypt to redeem the Jews.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
16th Nov 2017
Hogan's Heroes (1965)
Character mistake: In several scenes all over the show (though not always!), characters use the command "Raus!" to send somebody away from somewhere. Raus, short for "heraus" literally means "out" in the sense of "out of a building", which would be "aus einem Gebäude heraus" in German. Used as a command, it always means "get out", never "get away from there" or "get lost", in other words, the addressee must be inside of somewhere to be ordered "Raus." One example would be Schultz sending the prisoners away from general Burkhalter's car in S05E13.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It doesn't take much research to debunk this claim. Also, John Banner, the actor that most often used the term in the show, was German-born and raised. I'm sure he would have spoken up if it were wrong.
Sorry, what is the "not much" it takes to debunk that claim? By the way John Banner was not born and raised in Germany but in what was then Hungary-Austria. I, on the other hand, AM German born and raised, so if you think you know more about my native tongue than me, by all means, educate me. As for why it wasn't corrected, my guess is this: Words like raus, schnell, was ist los, bitte or danke are rather well known even in the US, so the audience would be able to follow the dialog.
Sorry, John Banner was born in Poland. He was not German.
He was born in 1910 in the city once known as Stanislau, prior to being annexed by Poland in 1919. At the time of his birth, it was part of Austria-Hungary, and one of the official languages was German.
You're correct. I didn't read the IMDb page enough.
8th Jan 2024
Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
Question: Why didn't the Japanese just cut the rope net off the cliff side to prevent the Americans from climbing up and attacking? Common sense would have been to inhibit their advance any way they could.
Answer: I'd classify it as a deliberate mistake or choice on the moviemakers' part. It fit the plot to have it play out that way and have the Japanese being attacked.
A deliberate mistake is something like using an 8-month-old baby as a newborn, something done intentionally for filming purposes. Writing in a plot contrivance isn't a deliberate mistake. At best, it could be considered a character mistake if it's something a real person would do in the character's position or a stupidity, a stupid act by a character for the sake of the plot.
It was a plot mechanic. Unfortunately, resulting in a massive, obvious plot hole.
23rd Feb 2016
Get on Up (2014)
Continuity mistake: Ben Bart passed away earlier in the film but can be seen dancing on stage with the character Gertrude, at a James Brown concert where he is performing "I Got Soul (Super Bad) ". (01:46:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: During that sequence, they intercut James in his gold jumpsuit, with long hanging-down hair, and James in a black-and-white checked vest, doing the same song. In the black-and-white vest era, Ben Bart is still alive, so the dancing could have been from that era.
While that does seem to be the case, it should be pointed out that Ben Bart died in 1968, but the song James Brown is singing, "Super Bad", was recorded in 1970.
5th Dec 2023
General questions
For a period of time starting in the mid-2000s, it became common for most major DVD releases to have both 1- and 2-disc editions. Typically, the 2-disc edition just had more bonus content and cost a few dollars more, while the 1-disc edition had less content and was cheaper. I never understood this. This was before streaming became huge, so it didn't incentivize buying the DVD, nor did the 2-disc edition cost much more, so it couldn't have had much impact on profit. So why was this even a thing?
Answer: OP here. From everything I've been able to find, it pretty much just looks like it was just a bit of a gimmick. Put some extra bonus content on a second disc, call it a "Special Edition" or "Collector's Edition" or "Limited Edition," and charge an extra $5 for it. People who wanted just the movie could buy the single disc for the standard price, and people who wanted more special features paid a slightly more expensive "premium price." And it would subtly boost profits.
I think you're right - the extra content largely existed already, there was no significant cost to produce it, and mastering a second version of the DVD wouldn't cost much in the grand scheme of things either, so any extra amount would have been pure profit. Showgirls (first example I found) apparently made $37m in cinemas and $100m in DVD sales. A couple of extra dollars per unit would add up. It might also serve as "anchoring" if that's the right term - having a more expensive 2 disc version makes the single disc version look like better value to the casual buyer (while also appealing more to the movie buff). There are certainly some films I splashed out on for the fancier version because I was a fan (and then of course never really watched the extras much!), but going back a while there was literally no other way to see this extra content unless you bought the special edition.
From the perspective of why they were simultaneously released (and with a relatively small difference in price), I'd agree. But this is different from why two-disc versions were released some time after the one-disc version (and with a substantial difference in price). That is, the reasons why this initially happened are different from why it continued to happen.
I was trying to refer to concurrent releases in my question. Unfortunately, the character limit meant I could not give any examples. I was referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Transformers." I used to go to the store at midnight to buy new DVD releases around the time those movies came out, and there would almost always be a single disc DVD with just the movie and a few features, and a 2-Disc set with more special features released on the same day. (A 2-disc special/anniversary edition being released a few years later for an older title makes sense, and is a different matter entirely. I'm referring to when multiple editions of the same new release were put out at the same time.)
Yes, I finally figured this out! You are asking about a specific time period and looking for a straightforward answer, without putting things in historical perspective (the developing technology and decreasing costs of mass-producing DVD movies). The extras (plus a little more) that used to be included on the standard editions were now on a second disc with the package costing about $5 more. It probably came down to "will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?"
It probably came down to 'will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?' "and unfortunately when I was a teenager, I was, hahahaha. But yeah, the more I look into it, the more it does just seem like a total gimmick. (I feel like a good modern comparison might be steelbooks... cool packaging, but usually sold for a very high markup even though it's the same exact discs.)
My "victimization" came much earlier. I had the standard release versions of movies and, later, when I started to see much more expensive two-disc versions, I thought, "Who would buy these now?" Well, I think I ended up buying 3 versions of "Terminator 2." [Why?]
Answer: From my experience, the 2-disc versions provided two different formats. Typically, the 1-disc version was Fullscreen and, depending on its release, did have additional content like commentaries and deleted scenes. The 2-disc version included a Widescreen version as well as extra materials, extended cuts, remastered versions, or special edition, etc. Later, when Blu-Ray came out, the 2-disc set usually included a standard DVD version. Some DVDs were sold as 2-sided without a lot of extra content but having a Fullscreen and Widescreen version.
This doesn't really answer the question. I'm not referring to those. I'm more so referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Super 8". Their DVDs only came in widescreen, but had two versions. A single-disc edition with just the movie and a few special features, and a 2-disc edition that had more special features. I'm curious as to WHY many titles had single and two-disc editions with the only difference being the amount of special features. It just seems more logical to release just the 2-disc edition. This answer basically just explains that 2-disc existed.
I apologise for misunderstanding the question, because what you described in my experience was atypical. And in my opinion, it makes sense to release two versions, but I'm afraid to answer why if I turn out to still not understand the question.
No problem. It's a very weird, specific question, hahaha. Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't even really an answer beyond just "they decided to try it for some reason."
Answer: Simply put MONEY.
Profits are almost always, if not always, a factor. The two-disc versions with "extras" might have been enough to get certain movie buffs to buy them, even though they already had the single-disc version - but I doubt very many people actually did so.
2nd Jun 2021
Family Guy (1999)
One If By Clam, Two If By Sea - S3-E4
Question: Who voices Sylvester Stallone in this episode? It is not listed on IMDB.
Answer: It's Alan Shearman.
Answer: According to IMDb, it's John Viener.
How is that possible? This episode aired in 2001 and Viener didn't join "Family Guy" until 2005.
Viener voiced Stallone in a season 4 episode. According to IMDb, Alan Shearman played him in this episode.
23rd Dec 2021
The King of Queens (1998)
Question: When Doug is telling jokes at the dinner, he asks the audience if they all received a number-two pencil. Then he tells a red-haired woman that he is just kidding. Would someone explain this joke?
Answer: A number-two pencil has long been standard for filling in the little boxes or circles on various paper evaluation forms, tests, and ballots. Doug didn't think he was funny enough to tell jokes at the roast and seems to be implying that his performance will be rated on a scale. For example, the audience would fill in a box somewhere between five for "excellent" to a one for "poor." He quickly clarifies he is kidding.
Also, as for the "Red" part: it's somewhat common for a red-haired person to jokingly be called that, just as a blonde person might be called "Blondie." I don't think her hair color was part of the joke; he just wanted to stop her from seriously looking for a pencil.
Answer: It's nothing more than him saying her red hair looks like the red eraser on top of a pencil. He's asking did every table get a redhead.
Pencil erasers are more pink. Is it a common joke for people to think that redheads look like pencil erasers?
There are some pinkish erasers, but a lot also have very red erasers. I don't know if it was common per se, but certainly something someone would come up with off the top of their head in that situation. Plus, he puts his hand on her shoulder to indicate he's talking about her and not just talking to the room.
15th Jun 2007
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Peter Parker is in the restaurant where Mary Jane is singing he is sitting down having a drink and in the background you see Willem Defoe as an extra in the scene.
Correction: It has been stated several times that this is not Willem Dafoe, and if you look close, it is obvious the man in question looks considerably younger and different than Dafoe.
You are very much mistaken. I watched this scene, and it obviously is Willem Dafoe. It is possible that the makeup artist made him look younger.
If it's Dafoe, then his interviews don't make sense. He's talked about his time on both Spider-Man films he's been in, and he's said he's not sure if he'd appear in another one if it was just a cameo or tip of the hat. Why wouldn't he mention this time?
Okay, maybe it's not Dafoe, but this man resembles him.
21st Sep 2018
Doctor Who (2005)
Character mistake: The question to unlock one of the doors asks for the next number in the sequence 313, 331, 367. The Doctor gives the answer as 379 with a convoluted (albeit correct) explanation of happy primes, but there are much simpler solutions. The difference between the first and second numbers is 18 and the difference between the second and third is 36 (which is 2 x 18), suggesting that the difference between the third number and the next could be either 54 (= 3 x 18), giving 421 as the next number, or 72 (= 2 x 36), giving 439. It's likely that the Doctor would see that the answer is ambiguous, and yet he confidently states that the most complicated answer is correct. (00:08:45 - 00:09:15)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If you know what a happy prime is, like the Doctor does, it might be simpler than your idea because you gave 2 options - 421 and 439. The idea of a pattern is there should be only one answer that fits, which would be the case if they're all happy primes.
18th Mar 2005
Friends (1994)
The One Where Rachel Quits - S3-E10
Continuity mistake: At the start of the scene in which Ross breaks the little girl's leg, we can see that the stairs are just separated by railings. Later in that scene, when Ross and Chandler start walking up the stairs, there are walls on both sides of them. (00:01:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't completely true. In the first shot, we see railing in the middle, as shown in the screenshot. Then, the shot changes to upstairs, looking down, and we can see the wall, as shown in the bottom picture. However, at the end of the wall, it goes into the railings, which is visible just as the pair start to climb the stairs. A screenshot of this can be seen here: https://ibb.co/bmZ8xTc, making it easier to understand.
The problem with the screenshot is the right side is circled to show there's no railing, but the railing is on the left side (to the character's right), but Chandler is blocking the view of the railing. Ssiscool's screenshot is before Chandler starts to walk up the stairs, which is why it's seen.
19th Oct 2023
The Simpsons (1989)
Homer's Triple Bypass - S4-E11
Question: Bart and Lisa say they don't feel highs and lows because their generation watches MTV. Can someone explain more?
Answer: I think Lisa and Bart are actually referring to Generation X and early Millennials. People of these ages are also known as "the MTV Generation." They dealt with the political, social, and economic issues that were happening in the '80s and '90s. Many were also "latchkey kids" who had to be independent from an early age. They are known for being apathetic or even cynical, after growing up the way they did.
Answer: They probably mean that MTV has little to do with real life, and viewers became numbed and emotionally detached from reality by watching the contrived idealized images almost non-stop. It prevents them developing empathetic feelings toward others in their lives.
This episode aired Dec 1992, and given that it took 6-9 months to produce an episode, the writing took place early or mid 1992. MTV's first reality show, "The Real World", didn't air until May 1992. "Road Rules", MTV's 2nd reality TV show didn't air until 1995.
But that's all equally applicable to watching endless music videos, shortening attention spans. The fear is/was that constant "input" like that would slightly numb people to the real world, with exciting music/images being the only thing that generates an emotional response, in comparison to the more "boring" real world.
25th Mar 2018
The Running Man (1987)
Corrected entry: When Laughlin is having his explosive collar removed, one of Mic's men gives Richards a cigarette. Less than 30 seconds later, this has changed into a large cigar.
Correction: There is no cigarette involved in this scene. Richards had a large cigar the whole time.
I agree, it's always a cigar. The way the light hits the cigar gives the impression of a thin cigarette.
Around the 10:50 mark, as he says, "Hasn't been very popular lately", he raises what looks like a thin white cigarette to his mouth?
No. What you're seeing is a highlight along the side of his cigar.
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.
Answer: He was doing a combat reload, where you eject all the rounds, spent or not and fill the revolver with new ones. It guarantees six shots, rather than relying on "indexing" where you count every round fired.
stiiggy
That doesn't make any sense since he hadn't fired a single round and the gun was fully loaded.
It's hard to tell, but it does look like there were at least some empty shells that land on the ground. A revolver isn't going to eject spent shells, so there's no way to say it was fully loaded.
Bishop73