Trivia: Anakin Skywalker's first name is first mentioned in this film. His name comes from a friend of George Lucas, British film director Ken Annakin.
Bishop73
23rd Apr 2008
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually his first name first revealed in Empire Strikes Back when he is on call with the Emperor. He says, "I have no doubt that this boy is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker."
Anakin's name was not used in the original release of "The Empire Strikes Back", therefore the trivia is correct. George Lucas retconned the special edition release and added "Anakin." Originally Luke was referred to as the "son of Skywalker."
27th Feb 2011
Hairspray (2007)
Trivia: Two characters from the 1988 film do not appear in this version: Arvin Hodgepile and Franklin von Tussle. The actors who played them have both passed away: Divine in 1988 and Sonny Bono in 1998.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Divine played Edna Turnblad.
Divine played both Edna and Arvin. Edna is in the 2007 film, but not Arvin.
20th Feb 2008
Father Ted (1995)
Think Fast, Father Ted - S2-E2
Question: What's the song that the dancing priest Father Finnigan is dancing to when Ted asks to borrow his car?
Answer: It's from 1960 and called Beatnik Fly and is played by Johnny & The Hurricanes.
It's not Beatnik Fly.
What makes you think it's not?
Because Beatnik Fly is a different instrumental, it's similar but not Beatnik Fly.
It's definitely Beatnik Fly. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI8OMrO1Y_Q.
22nd Jan 2021
Gilligan's Island (1964)
The Secret of Gilligan's Island - S3-E25
Trivia: This episode was the only episode to feature a single regular castaway from the show (other than Gilligan) to ruin a rescue attempt at the end. The professor was to blame in this one by making a mistake.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: In the episode "The Big Gold Strike", it's realised that the gold can't be taken with them as it would cause the raft to sink. The end of the episode has the raft sinking and everyone, excluding Gilligan, admitting that they took some gold with them so it was everybody's fault with the exception of Gilligan as he actually didn't have any gold on him.
This should be considered another trivia entry, not a correction. The trivia entry says "single" regular castaway, so it's excluding the group causing the failure.
Correct. I knew about the "gold" episode which is why I wrote "single" castaway (to indicate just one regular and eliminate episodes involving guests that ruined rescue attempts). Thank you for that.
30th Jan 2017
Sons of Anarchy (2008)
Burnt and Purged Away - S4-E12
Corrected entry: When Opie knocks on Gemma's door, the door opens into the house. Opie closes the door and it's facing out of of the house.
Correction: Gemma pushes the door open to allow Opie in, he pulls it shut. That's normally how hinged doors work. There is no mistake here whatsoever. What exactly, is facing out of the house?
"Facing out of the house" is exactly as it sounds, and what is seen, a door that opens outward. But the correction is correct. She never opens the door inward. It's a side or back door that opens out, unlike a front door that opens inwards.
4th May 2017
Sons of Anarchy (2008)
Character mistake: The nurse that was helping the doctor tend to Clay has blood all over her gloves. As she leaves the room, she takes off one glove. No hospital anywhere would allow doctors or nurses to roam the hall with bloody gloves and hands. It's a health hazard.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She leaves the room with both gloves on. Anyway, this can't be classed as a mistake because you don't see her at all after she goes through the door. She may have taken them off, off camera, as soon as she exited.
But a nurse wouldn't leave the room with them on, even if she took them off in the hall right away.
No doctor or nurse leaves the operating room with bloody gloves on! Come on.
22nd Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Continuity mistake: When the flashback with Asteria is shown she's got hazel or green eyes. In the post credits scene when played by Lynda Carter she's got light blue eyes.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It should be noted, Lynda Carter played both parts. Those are literally Lynda Carter's eyes we see in the flashback.
Still doesn't explain why they are green in the flashback. Lynda Carter has blue eyes. Probably caused by a color filter.
It could be a lighting issue or the way the armor made her eyes look different, but it's not a mistake since it's the same color eyes. (There are optical illusions that make some people see one color as two different colors based on the surrounding color).
20th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Chapter 5: The Gunslinger - S1-E5
Stupidity: Mando's ally breaks the fob saying he's got it memorized. Memorize a tracking device, that's new.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He means he memorized the chain code, the biometric data stored on the tracking fob. Calican already knows Fennec is headed towards the dune sea so they don't need the fob to track her location.
Beyond the dune sea, is what he says, yes, which is an enormous desert on the vaste planet. Memorizing the biometric data does not help at all without the tracking device. I took it that he memorized the positional data, but if I know someone's last known location, and that they are headed "beyond the Sahara desert" it is not really helping me find them, is it? You can make a guess, of course.
The chain code is what is used to identify the target, when they are turned in to collect the bounty. You don't need the tracking fob if you already know all the numbers in the chain code. That's the part that he memorized. It doesn't appear that the tracking fob gives you precise location data, so "In the Sahara dessert" is all you get. If the tracking fob did give more precise location data then every idiot in the galaxy would be a bounty hunter.
To identify the target he has the puck already. My point is that "Got it all memorized" is a plot device that works when your target is stationary (like The Child in the first episode), not a moving target. He smashed a -tracking - device (which took it where he is now) and then says he's "got it all memorized." You can't memorize tracking, and the chain code simply includes data like the age that are of no use for a target already well known like Fennec. What he memorized was her last known location at most... which if the fobs are as vague as you mention (one hopes that they are not just beeping dowsing rods) would make even less sense, because he wouldn't have a clue about her position and course and could be off by hundreds of miles.
The chain code contains identifying information that proves what target you've brought in. In another episode a character worries that if his chain code is scanned he will go to prison because he's a wanted man. Yes, the tracking fob is used to hunt down your target but that's not why Mando wants it and why the other bounty hunter destroys it. Without the fob, even if Mando catches Fennec he won't be able to collect the bounty because he doesn't know the chain code.
If we go with this theory, it sounds like Mando wants the money (and recognition) to bring Fennec in, but he does not care about that nor he was asking for it; the fob has a different use, and the chain code is memorized separately from that anyway (he was given in the first episode tracking The Child a fob without a chain code). The chain code is simply a code with the essential information about the subject, like a personal document. If that what he memorized, it's as if he said "Don't worry, we'll find her in the desert, I got her social security number." And if he captured Fennec, which was needed alive, he would have gotten the recognition no matter what.
I tend to agree with the mistake that the tracking fob is receiving updated biometric coordinate data, so there's no way memorize updated data, at most it would be memorizing last known coordinates. However, I would advise using terms like "Baby Yoda" if you want to be taken seriously, otherwise it looks like you haven't watched the show. There's no need to use incorrect terms just because you think people won't know who "The Child" or "Grogu" is.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Stupidity: Diana and Steve are both characterized as heroes and highly moral individuals, but they both are perfectly fine, without giving any shadow of a second thought, with the fact that Steve is inhabiting the body of a real person, with a real job and friends, completely innocent and whose life has been taken. We don't ask for a movie to cover every possible nuance, but they make reference to his job, use his stuff, endanger the innocent body and use it 'for pleasure' too. They make a big deal of Cheetah losing her humanity, but what the heroes do is arguably worse.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While this is bad writing that makes them unsympathetic, it is not objectively a mistake. They endanger the man through Steve because the entire world is at stake. They have sex using his body because they, like the writers most likely, do not consider it rape because there's no indication that the man is conscious in Steve's body or that he'll ever find out (So closer to date-rape), and ultimately, Diana wanting Steve to stay in the man's body forever, while arguably out of character, is a character flaw they both realise she needs to overcome by the end of the movie.
Not objectively a mistake? Actually I agree! Stupidity entries are in a tab separate from the proper "mistakes" tab for a reason; all those behaviors that are not full plot holes but happen against logic and character, just because they are being a tool for the plot. The movie does not make them unsympathetic by design; that would be good writing, that wouldn't be stupid, it would be human. But no, their love antics are never characterized as problematic or inherently creepy. The choices they make and that are outlined in your comment are glossed over; the movie hides the face of the guy but they both see it when they 'rape' him and when they risk his wellbeing, When she gives up on him she does it to get her powers back, she is not overcoming a character flaw, since the presence of the "other guy" is not addressed even at that moment, even if they see him. (if Steve were in a new body, the scene would have played exactly the same). Nobody could act this blasè.
Everything you've said in the stupidity entry and comment is your opinion (well, probably the opinion of the one YouTube video we've all seen where the guy bashes the film and then others repeat his opinion). Wonder Woman sees Steve, not the man whose body Steve is in. Not to mention we don't hear all their conversations about the situation because it would become clunky dialog. And before she starts losing her powers, the two really had no idea what had happened to the man. But nothing in the film regarding this situation is out of character of the "good guys" because we've never seen them in this situation (nor has anyone actually been in this situation to claim "nobody would act this blasé).
I invite you to rewatch the actual movie and not any youtube video; she sees the guy, they both do; he's never Chris Pine, who is 'canonically' never in the movie as himself. Chris Pine is what we, the audience, see. Look back at the scene of the mirror. They explain it. She says "He's great, but all I see is you." Not meaning that she LITERALLY sees Steve, but that she knows it's Steve and so she thinks of him. He even says, about himself, when he tells her to look for other men, "What about this guy" and she says "I don't want this guy." What's in the movie is out of character for any human being who is not delusional to the point of actually seeing the face of someone else. Which is what the movie needs to turn us viewers into to make the plot work.
Nothing in the film suggested to me she sees the other man after Steve comes back. I was basing my comments on watching the film (the YouTube comment was because this mistake is the same rehashed comment found there). When the camera pans around and the audience sees Steve, I took it to mean Diana sees Steve. When she says "all I see is you", I took that to mean she literally sees Steve. The mirror scene was to show the world still sees the man, but not Diana. But I can understand if others' take away was Diana sees the other man but just knows inside her heart it's Steve.
She sees that guy at the party, and only through Steve's words she then realises it's him, which the movie portrays from then on by showing Steve to us. The earlier part of the mirror scene is even more clear. He says; "Look at you. It's like not one day has passed." And she replies jokingly "I can't say the same thing about you." He does not look the same! And he in fact then goes to the mirror saying, "Right, right, right." and comments on the look of "He." So yes, I do firmly believe that it's what the movie says. If I may; the fact that some people on Youtube posted a video saying some things does not mean that anyone else supporting a specific idea - which does have a foundation in what the movie said, as I hope I clarified - did not reach the same conclusion and should be dismissed because they are lazily rehashing hersay. Glad you at least see where I come from, even if you may have not read the movie facts the same way I did.
12th Jan 2021
Think Like a Dog (2020)
Corrected entry: The entire plot is fantasy... I think it is safe to say those things (e.g, amplifying electrical disturbances in someone's brain and using a transmitter to hear that person's thoughts) could not happen.
Correction: Which is why it's listed as a "science fiction comedy", it's not meant to be real or currently possible.
Whose listing is that? What I find most interesting is that before I submitted my view that it is "fantasy", I looked on-line to find what genre this movie fell under. Most websites listed family and kids, kids and comedy, drama, and combinations. I could not find Lionsgate's official "classification." But NOT ONE website listed "fantasy" until AFTER my submission. This makes me believe it was ADDED by someone. Some websites allow anyone to edit... and make someone else's view no longer accurate. [At least there are ex-post facto laws... and I've committed no crime... or ethical violation - although I'm sure at least someone might disagree.].
Which is why I never said it's a fantasy genre. You can see it listed as sci-fi on IMDb and Box Office Mojo. Wikipedia, while it can be edited by anyone, lists it as sci-fi but not fantasy. Lionsgate's website doesn't list genres for most of their films. Although "a science experiment gone awry" tell most people it might be a sci-fi film.
I specifically noted to myself that you did not directly state fantasy. I will not reply, so write whatever makes you happy.
8th Jan 2021
After We Collided (2020)
Trivia: This is the sequel to "After" (2019).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't trivia, especially since it stars the main cast of characters and is based on the sequel to the book.
Arguably, EVERYTHING is trivia.
No, anything obvious, common knowledge, or easily seen by viewers is NOT trivia. Also, things unrelated to the film or those involved is not trivia.
The "easily seen by viewers" is a bit of a grey area, because people (well, I) do read trivia listings before seeing a movie just for background info. But I agree that not everything can be trivia - it needs to be broadly of note, although granted that's highly subjective!
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Plot hole: The established rule of the wishing stone says that you get one wish, to the point that Max couldn't grant a second wish to the guy who wished a Porsche even if Max was really eager to get his help, and warned his son against wasting his, screaming disappointed when he did waste it. But all of a sudden, he can grant Cheetah a second wish because he's "feeling generous". Without rules, he'd be some omnipotent being who can do anything. The fun part is that there was no need at all for this mess, since Barbara's second wish by its nature (and even the way she formulates it) supersedes the first...but Max couldn't know that. (02:01:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Max is taking from whoever wishes, he choses what. What he takes, he gives to Barbara and himself. He takes the health, she gets the fury. That way he grants her wish without her actually wishing. Same with himself, taking what he wants. And yes, what she wishes does supersede her first wish, but e still holds those powers as well.
That's just changing the established rule out of the blue and just for one person. Why would she get more than one wish when everyone else can't and earlier he was shown to have that limit and be frustrated by it?
It can also be pointed out that the original stone gave Barbara her wish. When Max Lord became the Dreamstone, he became something else. She never got a wish from him. When he says he was feeling generous, he wasn't saying he'll grant her a 2nd wish, he's saying he won't take anything from her.
Then he did not get what he wished for, since his wish was literally "I wish to be you, the Dreamstone itself." And him not taking anything from her is again a change of the rule.
And since he didn't turn into a crystal, he became something else. He had the power. And there was no "rule" something had to be taken, Max was taking something out of greed. The stone did have a natural consequence, which Barbara experienced by losing her humanity in order to become Cheetah. But that's noting to do with Max taking anything or the rules changing.
The conversation is shifting away from the original point; she gets 2 wishes and nobody else does, not even people he wants them to. It cannot be because they are considered separate entities, because then the previous stone is not considered in existence anymore and then Barbara and Diana's desires should have been nullified.
Technically you can't call this a mistake. The stone being absorbed by Max doesn't destroy the power the stone held, nor is there a president for this. So there is no telling what would change from the original powers and or ruleset of the stone. Max never granted a 2nd wish and stating he was feeling generous was just a means to get the wish spoken out. Max also offered Diana a wish even though she already had a wish happen by the original stone. The question is, did the stone restore?
It's all the same thing. The problem with a lot of these mistake entries is making false assumptions about what should or shouldn't happen and not understanding who the characters are and what's going on. Yes, the film has flaws, but this isn't a forum to express your personal thoughts about what you think is wrong with the film (some don't even sound like original ideas since they're word exactly like what you can find online everywhere).
Since it's not a forum, I shouldn't reply to something not pertaining to the entry itself, but thanks for saying that you can read this 'everywhere', means I am not the only one thinking this way and perhaps you should wonder why? But that aside he can't grant wishes to someone who already expressed them not take nothing away, until he just does. My original entry says who when why based on the movie itself. The movie being flawed or not is not really my point, I hope it's clear that whenever something about a movie is posted, it does not mean to just 'riff' on the movie or 'bash' it or anything per se. Enjoying a movie and its plot with its simplifications and sometimes metaphorical licenses has nothing to do with examining a plot point and read through the fine print.
Maybe instead of endless comments one should just wait with commenting until the suggested entry is actually liked enough and corrects your mistake. If people don't agree with the suggested correction, no need to discuss it.
26th Oct 2020
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989)
Plot hole: It seems that after committing 6-odd counts of aiding and abetting, literally right in front of the strict Police Captain father of one of them, Ted and for that matter Bill, would be lucky to only go to military school, regardless of passing or failing one particular class.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The threat of Ted having to go to the military academy in Alaska was because he was going to fail. Since they passed and graduated, there's no need to attend the military academy. Some time passes before Rufus brings the babes to Bill and Ted, so we don't know what punishment they were given.
This isn't ordinary misbehavior, it is a felony, what do you think the punishment would be? No TV for a week?
I don't have to speculate what their punishment would be. Certainly neither would be sent to military school (which is a TV and movie trope that wayward children get sent there anyways). Your mistake entry is not a plot hole plain and simple.
13th Mar 2014
How I Met Your Mother (2005)
Continuity mistake: When Robin leaves to get Battleship, Barney thinks they're going to have sex, whips his belt off, and throws it on the floor. When Robin returns, he's neatly folding his pants and draping them over a chair, and his belt is still threaded through the loops. (00:16:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He could have easily done that himself so it was easier to put back on afterwards.
This correction is too much of a stretch. It would make no sense for him to take off the belt and throw it to the ground in the first place. He was alone at that point, so he wasn't doing it to impress anyone and he's been in this position before.
19th Jan 2014
Jumanji (1995)
Question: At the end, how is it that Alan and Sarah remember Judy and Peter, if they grew up as if nothing had happened?
Chosen answer: Alan and Sarah remember everything that had happened during the course of the game's length, as would Judy and Peter if they'd been alive yet when the game started. All players retain their memory of the game after it ends, except in this sort of unusual circumstance where two of them didn't exist at the time the game began.
With the logic of Jumanji 2, Judy and Peter will also remember Jumanji in 1995. They still do not remember it because the final scene of the first film is at Christmas 1994.
Too bad Jumanji 2 has no logic and has nothing to do with this one except the name.
The logic of Jumanji 2 (which this is) doesn't apply because the idea is in the original Jumanji film, Alan and Sarah changed Judy and Peter's history and they ended up never playing the game. In Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Alex does nothing to change the history of the 4 main characters, therefore, they go on to play the game after Alex returns to his own time.
Answer: Actually I believe the kids did remember there was a silent look shared between all them at the end when they meet up that many people say is confusion but I think its more along the lines of "hey don't blow this shared secret none of us can explain"
Nah there is no indication that Peter an Judy remembered as well. Think about it, they would have remembers from since they were born. Also, they would then also know their parents will die in an accident. Thats crazy. They had that look because Alan and Sarah reacted that way and were wondering why they did that. They didn't say anything and even wondered why Alan and Sarah so emphatically said "no" to their parents going skiing (where they would have their accident).
I feel Judy and Peter remember Alan and Sarah because when Alan and Sarah shouted that Judy and Peters parents cannot go for the skiing vacation Judy and Peter did not have a shocked look on their face instead they had a smile on their face.
13th Oct 2020
3rd Rock from the Sun (1996)
Question: I'm watching this show on an app called "Tubi TV" and none of the 1st season episodes have the opening narration from James Earl Jones. I remember watching this on TV, but it would have been reruns and I can't remember hearing the narration then either (granted, I may have forgotten hearing it, but it's so distinct and unique that I don't think I would have forgotten it). When the show was in rerun syndication, was the narration removed? Why? Just to ad 30-seconds of ad time? Why would the narration be removed on streaming services where ad time isn't an issue? Do they not have access to the originals? Has anyone seen the narration removed anywhere else?
Answer: I have the entire series on DVD, and season 1 doesn't have the narration on it either. Perhaps the studio cut it to avoid having to pay residuals to James Earl Jones. Some episodes on my DVDs also seem to be missing scenes or parts of scenes that appeared in original airings, but were removed in syndication, so it seems just as likely that all episodes that were supplied for DVD replication or for streaming services received versions that were the edited for syndication.
Thank you for this insight. Interesting the DVDs don't have it.
5th Jan 2021
Broken English (2007)
Question: When Nora drinks with Nick Gable at the bar, she says "You know what Hugh Hefner says about ____? That 3 are too many and one is not enough." What's the word she said in the blank? What is she talking about? The subtitle was left out there. And from what I searched, this "Hugh Hefner" is a real person. The Wikipedia says he is an American magazine publisher. Is there a remark that became known to the public he has ever said? (00:14:10)
Answer: She appears to actually be paraphrasing author James Thurber: "One martini is all right. Two are too many, and three are not enough." Hugh Hefner was the publisher of Playboy Magazine, but he doesn't seem to be the one who made this quote.
Chosen answer: The word she says is "breasts." I've never found it attributed to Hugh Hefner though. The quote seems to have originated from the film "The Parallax View" where Gail says "They say a martini is like a woman's breast: one ain't enough and three is too many." It's been re-quoted in several different places and has nothing to do with James Thurber. She's just saying it as a joke and I think they used Hefner's name since it sounds like something he might say since he founded Playboy, but also so Nick could say "he's one to talk, he has 19 girlfriends."
There are Internet sources showing that the original quote being paraphrased is by James Thurber: "One martini is all right. Two are too many, and three are not enough."
Yes, but that's not the joke and has nothing to do with the scene. They're two different quotes and the latter one has nothing to do with Thurber's quote. His quote is not being paraphrased at all.
Yes, but the way your response is worded makes it sound as if the quote never had anything to do all with James Thurber. Brian Katcher was citing it in his response to give context to the joke's origin and how it is being paraphrased, not the joke itself.
Yes, the quote in the movie, despite not being credited to Hefner, IS NOT Thurber's quote. Brian just brought up a random quote that had nothing to do with the scene or the question.
6th Sep 2007
The Core (2003)
Factual error: In a few shots through the movie the gauges or screens displaying information, they use "PPI" for pounds per sq. inch instead of PSI. PPI is wrong it's always PSI. The first time you see it is in the scene when they just launch the ship right before they pierce the crust with Braz and Serge for sure.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They are measuring pounds per linear inch which is PPI.
18th Dec 2019
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: When Kimble is in the hospital with the boy he changes the diagnosis to what? I have tried to look but it cuts away as he's writing it down on the boy's file.
Answer: Kimble is watching as the doctor, Al, looks at the chest film and states "possible fractured sternum, he's stable," and we can see Kimble's very bothered by that. Then Kimble is told to take the boy to observation room 2. When Kimble questions the boy and looks at the chest film, Kimble ignores what he was told, and instead heads directly for the surgical OR. In the elevator he draws a line over the incorrect essential diagnosis: "depress chest w/ poss fr" (possible fracture), and begins to write "Ao," then he scribbles a signature on the Patient of Dr line. The essential diagnosis Kimble writes is presumably an Aortic trauma - a life-threatening critical injury and requires immediate attention. So when Kimble brings the boy to the OR (instead of observation room 2) for the immediate emergency surgery, he tells the doctor the boy was sent up from downstairs. The child is then taken to operating room 4, STAT, thus saving the child's life.
Its a pneumothorax, is air trapped between the lung and the ribcage and it's very common.
Answer: When Richard changes the diagnosis, the first thing he writes down is "AO" which is medical shorthand for aorta. Many people who have medical degrees and saw the movie speculate that Joel had an aortic tear. This would cause blood to flow into the chest cavity making it difficult to breathe and with the impact from the crash it could have caused the fatal injury. An aortic tear requires immediate surgery and by changing Joel's diagnosis, Kimble was able to save his life.
Answer: The presumption is the boy was misdiagnosed and he changed the chart to the correct diagnosis. The doctor says later that he saved the boy's life. Most likely he changed the charge to order specific tests.
Answer: It's never specified what he changed the orders to, nor is it important to know. This was done only add to the plot where the other doctor noticed him looking at the X-ray, arousing her suspicion, then creating suspense as Kimble barely escapes from the hospital.
We know it isn't important know, it's just a point of curiosity.
True and if you notice that's the always reliable Julianne Moore as the other doctor. This was the first movie that she did that was lampooned in Mad magazine, the next would be Mocking Jay Part 1.
"The Lost World: Jurassic Park" and "Hannibal" were both lampooned by Mad before "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1."
I totally get that you're curious about it. Just saying that filmmakers usually aren't concerned with showing small details like that. They use broader strokes to tell the story.
A lot of film makers do put in small details into their work. Yes, some are lazy, for example, repeating 1 or 2 paragraphs in a news article too look like they whole page is filled. Others take time to have the whole thing filled out, even adding funny things for the viewer who paused the video to read. This is why there's a lot of trivia entries and questions about what something small was or meant. A casual viewer wouldn't know if what they saw meant something or was the film makers being lazy.
2nd Jan 2021
The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
Continuity mistake: When Bond hangs the clear sheet on the screen, the dark line is both next to and on top of the pink line showing the submarine course. A moment later, the clear sheet has moved, making the lines further apart. (00:13:58 - 00:14:41)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The pink line is always visible and depending on the camera angle it's brighter in places than others, if the clear sheet with the black line on has moved it's very slight.
The mistake says nothing about the pink line not being visible or changing brightness. And if the clear sheet moved slightly, that's a mistake.
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.