Question: I can't quite read what book Indy's college associate friend pulls out of his desk right before his wedding and I was wondering what it was.
Charles Austin Miller
15th Jun 2018
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Factual error: When Zephram Cochrane, Riker and LaForge activate the warp drive of the prototype starship Phoenix, the prismatic starscape is seen streaking past (same effect as in the Star Trek: TNG series). However, the Phoenix never leaves the solar system or even the vicinity of Earth, achieving only Warp One (the max velocity of the Phoenix) for a few seconds. Even at lightspeed, the Phoenix did not enter interstellar space nor pass any other stars; therefore, the starscape should have remained almost motionless.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: What happens when a ship goes to warp it essentially creates a subspace distortion. This causes the starscape to change and move, as they exit regular space and enter subspace.
At Warp One, there should be zero prismatic distortions. It takes a full 24-hour DAY for light to cross the solar system. In a few seconds, a vessel traveling at Warp One, within a solar system, would see no distortions.
A ship slips out of regular space when going to warp, it creates a bubble around the ship, that bubble causes the starscape for the people inside it to appear moving or at least distort. That's what you see. That's what you always see when a ship goes to warp.
The prismatic effect was created for the TNG series to depict the ship passing stars at hundreds of times the speed of light. The Phoenix only achieved Warp One, one time the speed of light (lightspeed). As fast as that sounds, it wouldn't be fast enough to create any visual distortion.
Even at hundreds of times the speed of light you would only pass a star every few seconds, they didn't make that effect for TNG as in TOS they were going that fast too (as high as warp 9) and the same distortion is seen. You also keep saying its the speed that causes the visual distortion whilst I specifically mention its the fact the ship exiting regular space and into subspace is whats causing the distortion.
10th Jun 2018
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Plot hole: At the very end, when Leo Davidson crash-lands in Washington, DC, on the very steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the modified Lincoln statue depicts General Thade (the founder of the ape civilization on Earth) as wearing mid-19th Century clothing. This suggests that Thade escaped from his home planet Ashlar (aboard the recovered single-passenger Delta Pod, no doubt), entered the time-rift, and arrived on Earth in the early-to-mid 19th Century to begin taking over the human population. So, Thade by himself (with no advanced scientific knowledge) completely conquered human civilization on Earth in only about 150 years, which is absurd even for space fantasy.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is based on a lot of assumptions. Firstly, it's a perfect duplicate of the Lincoln memorial even though it's a different past, where humanity isn't the dominant species so it's obviously fantastical. Secondly, nobody says it's an historical accurate sculpture, in the middle ages and Renaissance they often depicted historical figures with modern clothes on. Just the sculpture doesn't give you the story behind it.
Judging from the closing shots of Washington, DC, Thade's ape civilization is a virtual duplicate of human civilization, right down to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, The Mall, the city itself, the makes and models of automobiles, and even the police uniforms. It's identical social evolution, except with apes in charge. The real Lincoln Memorial was constructed decades after Lincoln died (when fashions had dramatically changed) to memorialize a fallen president, realistically depicting him wearing his own 19th-Century clothing. If the apes followed an exact duplicate of human development (which is obviously the case in this film), then the Thade Memorial was constructed to realistically memorialize Thade, wearing his own 19th-Century clothing. This attempted correction makes no sense at all.
The idea alone that the apes evolved and build a society identical to our own makes it clear that the fact that they have a memorial of General Thade in 19th century clothes completely irrelevant to anything about any historical accuracy you might be referring to, as it isn't there. You can make an entire list of all the hundreds of things that don't make any sense in that scene, if that pleases you. But the clothing on a spoof of the Lincoln memorial doesn't make it a plot hole that Thade couldn't have taken power over such a short period. It's not supposed to make sense. Hell, Leo could be having a nightmare for all we know.
It's called a "plot hole," a poorly-reasoned concept with equally bad writing and production that does nothing to bring the plot full circle.
It's called a "plot hole," a poorly-reasoned concept with equally bad writing and production that does nothing to bring the plot full circle.
Additionally, the original mistake is making the assumption that the statue is of Thade. It could very well be (more likely in fact) that Thade made it to Earth in the distant past, causing the switch from human to ape evolution, and the statue is simply an ape who resembles Thade, possibly a descendant.
10th Jun 2018
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Plot hole: We know that Pericles the chimp (in Alpha Pod), then Leo Davidson (in Delta Pod), and then the entire Oberon space station are all pulled into the time rift and end up on planet Ashlar, each arriving at (drastically) different times. Apparently, just before the Oberon crashed on Ashlar, Commander Vasich sent a mayday transmission ("We're going down!") which is actually received by the Oberon itself before it entered the time rift. Commander Vasich and the Oberon crew are startled to see a very elderly Commander Vasich in the mayday transmission. This implies that Vasich and the Oberon crew instantly aged by decades while going through the time rift; yet, Leo Davidson and Pericles the chimp didn't age at all.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The mayday was broadcast years after Leo and Pericles had disappeared into the future, whilst still orbiting the planet, Vasich isn't as old as the later video recording Leo watches at the end of the movie, possibly a decade older. Eventually, after years of orbiting they crashed onto the planet, probably because they attempted to get closer. Then decades pass after the crash until finally the apes on the crashed ship take control. It's possible the Oberon never went into the time portal itself. It crashed in the past after all.
According to the backstory, Alpha Pod, Delta Pod and the Oberon were pulled into the time-rift in quick succession, and they almost instantly arrived at their respective destinations in time (in the case of the Oberon, it travelled back thousands of years to a time when Ashlar was uninhabited). If the Oberon then orbited Ashlar for decades before crashing, then the Oberon crew and Commander Vasich certainly knew that there was nobody to respond to their radio transmissions. but after decades of silence, the elderly Vasich suddenly transmits a mayday signal just before "going down"? No, this is a plot hole, just like the ending in which General Thade (the founder of the ape civilization on Earth) is depicted in statuary as wearing mid-19th Century clothing.
No, they didn't broadcast, they made a video log. They decided to record what happened.
Or, the went through the time-rift, stayed in orbit for as long as they could and got a signal from the rift coming from the past station and send a distress signal to them. Not knowing they were sending a signal to themselves.
27th Aug 2001
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Plot hole: The "video history" of the crashed USAF ship makes it very clear that the planet is uninhabited when they "landed". I can understand how a race of apes develops - they had a bunch of them on board. I can understand how a race of humans develops - they are descendants of the original crew. What I don't understand is...where the heck did all the horses come from?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Humans refer to parts of their own planet as uninhabited even though they are crawling with animals - vast areas of the Arctic are "uninhabited" even though polar bears and seals are found there. Were we to find a planet with nothing but primitive horses on it, we would label it as uninhabited. Apes and humans came from the crashed spaceship, horses were always there.
Which still makes no sense whatsoever.
I agree with you Charles. Horses are native to Earth but, the Oberon lands on a planet light years from Earth so it's a big plot hole how horses from one planet could end up on another when the planet was not only uninhabited but, the Oberon was believed to be lost.
Again, the Oberon was a massive space station, genetically experimenting with many earthly lifeforms, including horses, apparently. The time/space-rift was very near Earth (Mark Wahlberg made the journey in about 25 seconds at the end of the film. Not years but seconds). The implication is that the Oberon passed through the rift, and much of the crew survived to continue their genetic research on what later became the Ape Planet. So, the Oberon initially arrived on a barren planet and introduced all of the biological and botanical species, including apes, horses, and everything else.
Suggested correction: According to the backstory, the space station Oberon was dedicated to genetic modification sciences. They were actually experimenting with animal genes in the safety of space (which kind of makes sense). Given that the Oberon was a truly gigantic space station, it's not too much of a speculation that they were experimenting on many different types of animals (not just apes). When the Oberon crashed on Ashlar, half its crew was killed, but half survived with a number of ship's systems still functional, and they continued their genetic research, possibly producing a number of Earthly species on the otherwise uninhabited planet.
I think this should've been posted as a question, rather than a plot hole.
That's just a wild guess. There hasn't been a single mention of horses on board the Oberon. Even if there were, why only horses?
Wild guess? The Oberon was experimenting in genetic modification, which implies a broad range of research...and not just on great apes. The Oberon was gigantic enough to be an Ark.
So where are all the other animals?
Exactly. Where are the birds, lions, lizards, etc?
9th Jun 2018
2010 (1984)
Question: In the original film, the Discovery's onboard computer states: "I am a HAL 9000 Computer, Production Number 3. I became operational at the HAL plant in Urbana, Illinois, on the 12th of January, 1992." So, "HAL" was a manufacturer identification prefix (standing for Heuristically-programmed ALgorithmic Computers), "9000" was its model number, and "No.3" was its production lineage. In this sequel, however, Dr. Chandra is chatting with one of HAL's earth-based twin computers which has a feminine voice and is called "SAL"; but how can they arbitrarily change its manufacturer identification prefix? Being produced by the HAL plant in Urbana, Illinois, and being identical to the computer aboard the Discovery, the twin's name should have a different production number, but it should still be called "HAL," should it not?
Answer: The most likely reason the name was changed was probably a literary one. It makes it easier for the audience to differentiate SAL from HAL, showing how they are two distinct computers playing different roles in the film. It may also just be a feminine nickname being that SAL has a female voice.
I thought perhaps "SAL" was a nickname, also, until I saw that the computer's maker nameplate reads "SAL 9000" (visible in close-ups of SAL's glowing eye).
6th Nov 2002
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Cole and his mother are stuck in traffic behind the accident, it's a two lane street, one in each direction. Their lane is obviously backed up. But why is the other lane backed up as well? If anything, that lane should be empty, since they would stop traffic at the point of the accident for that lane, not allowing cars to continue. There's no reason for traffic to be stopped once it's past the accident.
Correction: If you look at the scene very carefully and very slowly, you can see that there is in fact a car (white) which has blocked traffic in that direction. The car is pulling through that lane and turning left, to enter the lane occupied by the main characters That car cannot enter that lane (i.e. toward the accident) because that lane is backed up (due to the accident). So, there actually is an explanation in the scene for why that lane is backed up.
Gridlock.
20th Feb 2009
Jaws (1975)
Question: When the swimmers are running out of the water, why does Brody shout: "No whistles?"
Answer: Brody didn't want to panic all the beach goers and cause a splashing commotion which would excite the shark.
Answer: When the shark attacks fist began, Brody began reading up on shark behavior. It is believed that vibrating sounds can attract sharks. Brody believes that multiple people blowing loud whistles could bring the shark closer into shore.
On the contrary, high frequency noises (such as those produced by whistles) barely penetrate into the water and seem to have no effect on sharks or any other fish. Low-frequency noises (such as concussive splashing) travel a great distance in water and are a definite attraction for marine predators. Ultra-low-frequency noises (such as the songs of whales) can travel hundreds of miles through water. The U.S. Navy even uses extremely-low-frequency (ELF) transmissions for communicating with submarines far out at sea. So, no, there is no documented scientific reason for Brody to think that high-frequency noise would attract sharks. Either the movie's screenwriters were badly mistaken in their assumption that whistles attract sharks, or the character of Chief Brody was deliberately written to be mistaken in that assumption.
In a study, sharks were attracted to low-frequency pulsed sounds resembling those of struggling fish. Sharks appearing in close to wounded or struggling fish has often been observed by fishermen and scuba divers. That type of shark behavior is probably what Brody read about, though his scientific knowledge or understanding about it was limited. He was just reacting in an excited manner.
22nd Jan 2005
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Question: I don't understand the significance of the monolith or the starbaby. Can someone explain it to me?
Answer: As author Arthur C. Clarke explained it, the first Monolith (the one seen at the beginning of the film and then buried on the Moon) was a space probe from an incomprehensibly more advanced alien intelligence that resided inside a star elsewhere in the cosmos. The Monolith's objective was to seek out lifeforms that had potential and "tweak" their neural evolution, causing them to evolve toward intelligence. In the case of Mankind on Earth, once the modification was made, the Monolith probe retreated to the Moon and waited 4 million years for Mankind to reach it. When Mankind reached the Moon, the Monolith sent a signal to the next phase of the experiment, which was another Monolith in orbit of Jupiter. When Mankind reached the Jupiter Monolith in a matter of months, the Monolith acted as an interdimensional portal to the other side of the universe, transporting the evolved human specimen to its creator (that resided within a star). The creator intelligence found the specimen (Dave Bowman) to be of acceptable quality and rapidly evolved him to the next level, a Star Child. The Star Child is a "godly" evolution of Mankind. The Star Child chooses to instantaneously return to its home planet (Earth), where it stops a nuclear war.
Answer: The monolith is a monitor placed by the aliens to track the progress of developing civilizations. When humanity found the monolith on the Moon, that signaled a certain level of technological advancement. The starbaby is the evolution of the astronaut, as the symbol of humanity, from "Earth-bound" to a true child of the universe, turning his back on the Earth and looking toward the stars.
In both the Arthur C. Clarke story and in the movie, the Star Child does not "turn his back on Earth"; quite the contrary, as soon as Bowman transforms into the Star Child, his first impulse is to instantaneously return to Earth, which he does just in time to stop a nuclear war. In essence, Bowman becomes the guardian of Earth.
Answer: In 3001: The Final Odyssey, Clarke makes clear what many already suspected: The Monolith was malfunctioning by the time it tweaked human evolution. It increased human aggression in order to assure human survival, but this was a hasty move, which saddled humanity with a never ending series of destructive conflicts. Kubrick also hinted at this in a later movie. The Monolith appears in Full Metal Jacket, presumably inspiring the soldiers in the Vietnamese War to solve their problems by killing, just as it had inspired the fighting hominids millions of years before.
The monolith from 2001 does not appear in Full Metal Jacket. There is a tall burning building in the background during Cowboy's death scene but it takes a hell of a stretch of the imagination to see it as a monolith. It's just a ruined building. Kubrick himself confirmed this in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine - it's combination of coincidence and wishful thinking.
27th May 2018
Psycho (1998)
Question: When private investigator Milton Arbogast is attacked on the stairway, this film inserts two non sequitur pieces of footage right in the middle of the attack sequence: Just as Arbogast's face is slashed twice, a shot of a virtually-nude woman wearing a sleep-mask is inserted for a split-second, followed a moment later by a split-second insert of what appears to be a small calf standing in the middle of a road in a rainstorm. What is the meaning of those two inserts?
Answer: His life flashing before his eyes? Snapshots of Norman's fractured psyche? The director's vision?
Those are just more questions.
Answer: I'm sorry. There are no answers to your question. Or. The inserts were added to make the movie, which I liked, even more horrible.
26th May 2018
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Question: When Kirk and McCoy try to rescue Chekov at Mercy Hospital, Kirk removes the 20th Century medical team into an adjacent room and uses his phaser to instantly fuse the metal door lock. The medical team cannot directly see Kirk do this, as they are visibly several feet away on the other side of the door. It's also safe to say that the medical team has never seen a phaser and can't comprehend its function or capabilities. As Kirk turns away from the door to rejoin McCoy, the trapped medical team only then rushes up to the door, and the trauma surgeon exclaims, "He melted the lock!" However, it seems that you'd have to laboriously dismantle the doorknob to determine that the lock's internal components were fused. So, how did a 20th Century surgeon deduce at a glance that Kirk had somehow melted the lock?
Answer: The lock, and the area around it, would have become hot as a result of melting the lock. The hospital staff would then jump to the conclusion that the lock was melted. The real reason they mention it, however, is so the audience knows what he did to the lock.
But you would think, if the doorknob was still searing hot two seconds after being fused, that the first thing out of the surgeon's mouth would be a scream of pain, rather than "He melted the lock!"
Answer: The doctors were watching through the window the entire time. There was a visible red laser beam from the phaser, culminating with a puff of smoke or vapor emanating from the knob. It wouldn't be a huge leap for anyone to surmise that the knob had likely been melted.
Try watching the scene. No doctors are looking through the window when Kirk phasers the door lock.
Answer: Or perhaps the part of lock on the doctors' side is visibility melted.
Answer: The knob would have been super-heated by the phaser blast. Enough that it could be felt without touching, and he simply could have come to the conclusion that a metal object that hot would likely have its internal components melted without a systematic analysis of the doorknob. He's also a surgeon and needs his hands. He wouldn't last long at the job if he was someone who went around putting his hand on glowing-hot doorknobs.
He could've also been guessing as it appears he tries opening the door. Why they don't break the glass is beyond me, but that's a character mistake, and not up for debate here.
21st Mar 2016
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Question: Kirk and crew deliberately disclose crucial technological secrets, extend the life of a random stranger, deliver future technology to a primitive military power, abduct a cetacean biologist, and actually contribute to the extinction of a species during their brief stay in 20th Century San Francisco. Specifically: Scotty reveals the secret of Transparent Aluminum 150 years too early; McCoy arbitrarily uses 23rd Century medicine to cure a seriously ill 20th Century woman; and Kirk chooses to remove Gillian from the 20th Century. Perhaps most importantly, Chekov leaves behind a Starfleet Communicator and a Type 2 Phaser in the hands of the U.S. Navy (who would undoubtedly dissect the devices and try to exploit the technology a couple of centuries too soon). Beyond all that, Kirk and crew abduct two breeding humpback whales, one of which is pregnant, and that certainly contributes to humpback extinction in the 21st Century. Given what we think we know about disrupting linear time continuity (many instances are cited in Star Trek canon), how did Kirk and crew return to anything even resembling their own timeline after such blatant and deliberate interference in Earth history?
Chosen answer: This question has been answered a number of times by various individuals, all saying pretty much the same thing. The answers have been most satisfactory given the question revolves around a fictitious situation and the answer (s) need to be accepted as complete for this purpose. Any dispute or non-acceptance should be addressed in a Star Trek forum. Any ignoring of the Prime Directive was done to save the future of Earth, as the probe would have wiped out all life on Earth. Essentially, nothing that was done in the past resulted in major changes that would make Earth 300 years later appear any different, and no major futuristic technologies were revealed. The major one, Chekov's communicator and phaser being left behind did not result in anybody learning secrets. In the film, the phaser didn't function because of the radiation. It's presumed then the radiation permanently damaged the equipment so it appeared to be nothing but a toy or prop. However, in the novel "The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh", Roberta Lincoln was sent by Gary Seven to recover the items from Area 51 before any secrets were learned (and as stated before, additional corrections to Earth's timeline could have been done that aren't addressed in the film.) The subsequent loss of a suspicious "ruskie" would have hardly affected the era that was already in the midst of the Cold War. McCoy even questions that giving Dr. Nichols the formula for transparent aluminum could alter history to which Scotty replies what if Dr. Nichols is the one who invents it, to which McCoy agrees (in a later novel it is reveled that Scotty already knew Dr. Nichols invented transparent aluminum, so history was not changed.) The miraculous recovery of the old lady (growing a new kidney) was done by a pill so that any examination of her would not reveal the futuristic method involved. She would be a bewilderment to the medical community at best, and most likely misdiagnosis would be to blame. And just because she got a new kidney does not mean her life would have been extended, she could have died some other way in both timelines. And as stated before, Gillian simply wasn't vital to Earth's history. She could have contributed nothing of importance to society and died alone and childless. And a missing pair of breeding Humpbacks would hardly affect the extinction of their species, however in the future, they are already extinct, so little changes would occur. As for any questions about people seeing the Klingon ship in the past, who would believe them? People have long been claiming to see spaceships and aliens to little or no avail, so why would anyone believe a handful of people who said they saw aliens in a spaceship steal 2 whales? However, as with many time travel situations in films and novels, it's possible the events of the 23rd century as they appear in the beginning of the film are a result of Kirk and company's actions in the 20th century since the events already occurred even though Kirk and company had not yet done it themselves (this is where a discussion forum on the film would be advised, or a discussion forum on the theories of time travel).
Possibly the most convoluted and poorly-reasoned series of answers I've seen on this site. So far.
I think they're pretty logical actually.
I think your opinion would be in the minority. There is nothing exceptionally convoluted, nor poorly reasoned in the response.
Answer: They were extraordinarily lucky. The crew quite often defies all odds and encounters literal miracles. For a period of time this even happened on a roughly weekly basis.
3rd Apr 2017
Final Destination (2000)
Corrected entry: Why are the FBI investigating Alex? After it was determined the plane explosion was a malfunction, they should have left. FBI don't investigate teen suicide, bus accidents or a teacher's death.
Correction: Because he had a vision of the plane "exploding" and find that very weird. Everyone believes that Alex is some freak so why shouldn't the FBI be checking up on him? Added to that, Tod was one of the "survivors" from Flight 180, same with Mrs. Lewton and Terry, so obviously it's all connected and Alex is at the center of it all. Also, Clear said so herself that the "FBI don't investigate teen suicides", so this can't really count as a mistake; again, it's all connected.
Correction: The original script for Final Destination (called "Flight 180") was written in 1994 as an episode of the X-Files TV show, but it was never used for the series. The X-Files was entirely focused on the FBI investigating paranormal events.
Maybe, but as this is not the X-files the FBI would leave after the investigation showed it was an accident. Them sticking around makes 0 sense.
For that matter, expecting the FBI to investigate paranormal phenomena in The X-Files made zero factual sense, also. The fact remains that Final Destination adhered to the original X-Files "Flight 180" script, in which the FBI did, in fact, conduct investigations into apparently paranormal events. Both The X-Files and Final Destination concocted highly unlikely circumstances and relied heavily on the audience's suspension of disbelief.
But again. This wasn't an episode of x files. It's still a mistake.
13th Aug 2017
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Question: Why was Boromir allowed to join the Fellowship of the Ring? Since he is vulnerable to the Ring's corruption.
Chosen answer: Virtually everyone was vulnerable to the Ring's power to some extent, even Frodo Baggins. Frodo's purity of heart and incorruptibility made him the least affected by the Ring and made him the only logical choice to actually carry it for the duration of the mission; but EVERYBODY was vulnerable to its seductive power, some just more so than others.
But prior when the Fellowship was formed, he was tempted by the ring. He even tried to convince the council that bring the ring to Gondor would destroy Sauron. So why did Gandalf or Elrond accepts Boromir as a member of the Fellowship?
Well, Boromir's younger brother, Faramir, would probably have been a better choice for the Fellowship, if he had been available. But Faramir wasn't available and Boromir was. Boromir also wasn't actually "chosen" for the Fellowship, he simply went along out of loyalty to Aragorn. Gandalf and Elrond may have suspected Boromir's weakness (possibly even as a threat to the Fellowship), but Boromir was a seasoned warrior whose skills in battle would be valuable on this incredibly dangerous mission. Also, you may recall that Boromir wasn't even nearly as weak or unbalanced in the actual Tolkein story; rather, director Peter Jackson made Boromir more of a loose cannon in the film, which is not how he was portrayed in the book. In other words, Jackson wanted an even more unbalanced element threatening the Fellowship from within, so he amplified Boromir's weaknesses.
11th May 2018
Iron Man (2008)
Question: How did Stane's guards round up the ten rings? They didn't appear to have any weapons when they arrived, and the ten rings appeared to outnumber them.
Answer: Given that Stane was carrying (and used) the small, easily-concealed paralysis device, it may be assumed that his entourage were carrying (and using) the devices, also. They simply paralyzed the 10 Rings guards.
The Ten Rings members were shown kneeling with their hands on their heads, though. They wouldn't be able to do that if they had been paralyzed.
That doesn't negate the probability that Stane's entourage used the paralysis device on a few guards to demonstrate the effect, whereupon the other toady guards simply surrendered.
25th Feb 2016
Ghostbusters (1984)
Trivia: The Ghostbusters theme, "composed" by Ray Parker Jr., was directly ripped off from the song "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis and the News. In fact, Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker for intellectual property theft (settled out of court). Premiere Magazine later featured an article in which the film makers admitted to using the song "I Want a New Drug" as temporary background music in many scenes. They said that they made an offer to Huey Lewis to write the main theme for the movie, but Huey Lewis declined. The filmmakers then provided Ray Parker Jr. with finished film footage (including the Huey Lewis song in the background) to aid Ray Parker in writing an original theme song, which apparently he couldn't do.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is incorrect. Ray Parker Jr paid a fee to Huey Lewis to sample "I Want a New Drug." Lewis sued Parker but settled out of court. Years later, Parker sued Lewis because Lewis broke a confidentiality agreement by speaking about the out of court settlement during an interview.
Ray Parker Jr, himself (appearing on the Adam Corolla show in 2015), claimed that he had never met Huey Lewis, did not personally know him, and that he did not know Huey Louis was the first musician approached to compose the Ghostbusters theme song. But Parker's statement must be a deliberate falsehood. After Huey Lewis turned down the theme song offer, it was Ghostbuster director Ivan Reitman who provided "samples" of movie footage containing the Huey Lewis song "I Want a New Drug" (as background music) to Ray Parker. Parker then produced a direct knock-off the Huey Lewis music. No "fee" was paid to Huey Louis for the direct use of his music until after Lewis sued for intellectual property theft. Ray Parker Jr additionally claimed that he didn't and still doesn't know any of the details of the original lawsuit; but that, too, is a falsehood. The settlement paid to Huey Louis was undisclosed but quite sizable, so much so that attorneys for Ivan Reitman and Ray Parker requested a gag order on the settlement (to avoid the perception of an admission of guilt). Ray Parker was allowed to keep the copyright on the Ghostbusters theme, but the fact remains that Parker (AND Ivan Reitman) paid dearly for knowingly ripping off the Huey Lewis song.
2nd May 2018
Casino Royale (1967)
Continuity mistake: When Sir James and Mata Bond infiltrate Dr. Noah's headquarters, they hurry down a corridor with dozens of doorways. There are no flashing lights, but the corridor color repeatedly changes from blue with blue doors to red with red doors from one camera shot to the next.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: And exactly how would this have happened unintentionally? This was obviously done on purpose to create a disorienting, surreal effect. It may not be "realistic" but this is not a movie that concerned with realism.
Your attempt to speculatively explain it away as a stylistic choice does not negate the fact that this is a continuity error in a film that is full of continuity errors. It's important to remember that this film had 6 different directors, as well as disgruntled and uncooperative actors (Peter Sellers even quit and walked out in the middle of production). As a result, the movie has a piece-meal appearance and is riddled with plot holes and continuity errors.
Are you suggesting the two parts of the scene was directed by two different directors and one of them decided to change the color scheme before shooting? Considering the difficulty in creating the two different looks, it is practically impossible for this to have been done accidentally. A break in continuity is not a mistake if it is intentional.
Early in the sequence, Sir James and Mata Bond are looking for an escape route: They glance down one corridor, which is a dead-end that is all blue with blue doors; but they choose another dead-end corridor that is all red with red doors. As they flee down the red corridor, the camera cuts to show them from the front, back and profile as they hurry down the corridor. Although they deliberately chose the red corridor, the color changes from red to blue and back to red from cut to cut. The obvious answer is that they tried alternate takes Sir James and Mata Bond fleeing down the red corridor and then the blue corridor, but then sloppily edited the shots together into one sequence.
26th Mar 2018
Addams Family Values (1993)
Question: In the very last scene of the movie, we see Christina Ricci and David Krumholtz sitting in the Addams Family graveyard, and Krumholtz is placing flowers at Debbie Jellinski's tombstone, when a full human arm (presumably the late Debbie's) shoots out of the grave and grabs his wrist, sending him into screaming fits. However, Debbie was completely cremated to ash by electricity a few minutes earlier in the film. Nothing left of her but ash, shoes and credit cards. So, whose arm reached out from Debbie's grave?
Answer: We are never told whose arm it was that came out of the grave.
Answer: I always assumed she used Thing to prank him, but the arm was too long.
Answer: It was a prank Wednesday was pulling on Joel. She mentions she would scare her husband to death and then smiles when Joel starts screaming.
Yes, she said she'd scare her husband to death. But it is a very animated human arm that reaches out of the grave, causing me to wonder WHO was in the grave to pull off the prank?
I mean, if it was just a hand coming out of the grave, I would be satisfied that it was "Thing" taking part in the prank. But it was a whole human forearm (which Thing does not have).
There's no evidence in the film to answer the question. They never show you who the arm belongs to, and with good reason. It would ruin the joke. This is just one of those questions that can't be definitively answered.
This is also a reference to the end scene of Carrie.
3rd Aug 2005
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: At the end, a tripod collapses after behaving erratically for an hour, because the aliens inside were dead or dying. If so, wouldn't the tripod just stop moving and stand there because the aliens were too sick to operate it?
Answer: Or they had a mental link with the tripods.
The tripods are a mech suit for the aliens.
Answer: Depends on exactly how the disease affected the aliens. They might have entered a state of dementia and started piloting erratically, or even just have muscle spasms that knocked the controls around inside the cockpit.
Answer: Remember, when the tripod is spotted acting erratically, a cloud of birds are seen swarming the vehicle (presumably feeding on the dead/dying aliens inside). We can speculate that, although the aliens inside were incapacitated by disease, the tripod itself was probably functioning on auto-pilot with no precise operator control. Vulnerable, the staggering tripod was then an easy target for the military rocket-propelled ordnance, which easily brought the tripod down.
The birds weren't feeding on the dead aliens. Ray noticed that they were landing on top of tripods, showing that the force fields that had protected the machines and were impenetrable to military weapons were no longer operable. The military could then destroy them.
In the original H.G.Wells story, it is plainly stated that the birds were feeding on the dead aliens. So, the aliens are already dead, even though some of the tripods were still staggering around on autopilot.
Answer: Its theorized the tripods are bio-mechanical (half organic half machine) and so the system itself can get infected.
Answer: In the original H.G.Wells story, it is plainly stated that the birds were feeding on the dead aliens. So, the aliens are already dead, even though the tripods are still staggering around on autopilot.
Answer: It's a vehicle. If the driver dies or begins to die and is unable to control it properly, it's not going to be a smooth ride. Just like someone might drive erratically when sick or incapacitated, the tripods are going to movie a little "wonky" due to what's happening to the drivers.
18th Nov 2003
The Time Machine (2002)
Corrected entry: In 2020 they talk about the first 20-megaton explosion to create the lunar colony. Then we find out that these blasts have knocked the moon off its orbit causing it to break up. However even a single moderately sized crater on the moon would have been created by a blast an order of magnitude greater then this. How could such small blasts knock the moon out of its orbit while countless meteor impacts have had no effect?
Correction: For the moon to be knocked out of orbit, an object the same size and density would have to strike the moon and at relatively the same speed in the opposite direction. Even if the largest asteroid in our solar system struck the moon (Ceres which is almost 600 miles wide), the moon wouldn't be knocked out of orbit or even destroyed. As to all the comments about mining the moon to reduce its mass, even with unknown future technology, it's a ridiculous assumption. To reduce the mass of the moon by 100th of 1% (0.01%) you would have to remove about 7.35 quadrillion tons, so not trillions. A 1% reduction in mass would require 7.35 sextillion tons removed (not that a 1% reduction in mass would result in the moon being knocked out of orbit), which is over a quintillion tons a day for 7 years straight (1,000 mining facilities each mining out 30 billion tons a second, and currently we don't even mine 16 billion tons on Earth in one year). And a lighter moon would cause the moon to be pulled closer to Earth, not further away. Certainly a movie set in the future can have moon be out of orbit without creating a mistake. But to claim it was from blasting from 20-megaton explosions and mining isn't plausible due to the sheer size of the moon. Remember, the moon is bigger than Pluto.
Correction: All we hear is that the FIRST blast was a 20-megaton explosion, and then later, that the attempts to colonize the moon had knocked it out of orbit. We have NO idea what went on between the year 2030 and 2037, and to say that the moon's orbit was disrupted by 20-megaton blasts is an assumption, nothing more.
Its impossible. A bomb 10,000 times the strength wouldn't do a damn thing to the moon. Not even hundreds of them.
Correction: The mention of "blasting" was associated with lunar mining. Presumably, much of the mined lunar material was being freighted away from the Moon (perhaps and probably back to Earth, but also to other destinations), thereby depleting the Moon's mass over time. We know today that the Moon is gradually moving away from the Earth already under its current mass. Removing the Moon's mass gradually would affect its gravitational relationship to the Earth, eventually leading to the Moon's breakup due to gravitational tidal forces. The "blasting" would have only been the beginning of the calamity.
Sounds ridiculous. Got any idea how much mass they would need to remove from the moon before it would actually affect its orbit? trillions of tons. You need such a big operation of constant removal of huge amounts of material from the moon, for centuries. Not likely. Also, the craters on the moon are caused by meteorites that slammed into it with the power of hundreds if not thousands of megatons of TNT, for billions of years.
Why ridiculous? You have no idea how much material was removed, nor do you have any idea what a future civilization is capable of removing.
They would have to be removing trillions of tons of material from the moon for decades. In 7 years you can't remove enough mass from the moon to affect its orbit causing it to break up, not unless you have Superman doing the work.
Again, you have no idea of a future civilization's mining capabilities.
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: It is a Christian Book of Common Prayer, which contains the Marriage Ceremony, Funeral Ceremony, Baptism Ceremony, etc. The gilt lettering on the spine plainly reads "Common Prayer"; and, indeed, the shot of this book immediately transitions to a shot of the Book of Common Prayer from which the minister performs the wedding ceremony for Indy and Marion.
Charles Austin Miller
We might speculate that it's the same Book of Common Prayer used to perform the funeral ceremonies for Marcus Brody and Henry Jones Sr., whose deaths were briefly referenced early in the film.
Charles Austin Miller