Stupidity: In the scene with the water-jug puzzle, both Zeus Carver and John McClane initially suspect that the small carrying case contains a bomb. McClane goes ahead and opens the case, which confirms that it is a bomb (the electronic readout in the case even says: "I AM A BOMB. YOU HAVE JUST ARMED ME"). If they suspected it was a bomb in the first place, why didn't Carver and McClane immediately try to warn the dozens of pedestrians all around them to evacuate the area before McClane opened it? That would be a seasoned police officer's first instinct. Instead, McClane and Carver banter and bicker and never attempt to warn the public, even as the timer is ticking down.
Charles Austin Miller
13th Jul 2017
Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This carries over from the very first time McClane and Zeus talk to Simon on the phone (the "As I was going to St. Ives" scene). Simon tells the two not to run and McClane assures him they won't but that there are at least 100 people on the street, to which Simon responds "That's the point." McClane takes this to mean he can't just warn everyone or Simon will set the bomb off. They open the case because they don't know that doing so will arm the bomb. They wanted to know if there was a riddle or more instructions. Having the bomb be armed by being opened, complete with the pithy text "you have just armed me" was just a way for Simon to torment McClane. The bantering and bickering is of course, still pretty stupid but is consistent with how the characters behave for the entire movie.
Still, McClane's whole motivation in this movie is to save innocent people from death, which goes above and beyond his motivation in the first movie (which was to save his wife). What is the whole point of disarming the briefcase-bomb in the park if not to save the public? As stated in the original post, no seasoned and dedicated officer of the law would proceed without warning the public.
Except he was told specifically earlier not to do that. If he warned people of the bomb, it was implied that Simon would remotely detonate it. It can't be "stupid" of McClane to not warn people if he thinks doing so will get them killed. I agree that it is a trite movie cliche that a cop doesn't act like a cop would in the real world, but in the context of this film McClane's actions are consistent with the instructions Simon gives him.
8th Apr 2015
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Deliberate mistake: Both in the first scene and last scene of the movie, we see Yolanda and Ringo starting the robbery by jumping from their seat and start threatening the costumers. In the first scene, Yolanda says "And I'll execute every motherfucking last one of you." But in the last scene the line changes to "and I'll execute every one of you motherfuckers". (00:04:40 - 02:18:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Tarantino has explained that this is not an error, rather, he did this on purpose. When we first examine the scene, we are seeing Ringo and Yolanda's conversation from their perspective. Obviously, because this is their conversation, what we hear first is probably what was actually said. However, at the end of the film, what is said is different because we are no longer viewing the situation from Ringo and Yolanda's perspective, but rather everyone else in the diner, most specifically Jules.
Sounds like a typical Tarantino excuse for a stupid blunder.
I believe about 70% of the so-called mistakes called out here are really cinematic techniques to show points of view, highlight significant action, and underscore dramatic moments.
18th Jul 2017
Deepwater Horizon (2016)
Corrected entry: The British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon accident was erroneously characterized by environmental activists, by some U.S. politicians, by the press and by this film as the "worst" manmade oil spill in history. It was not. The Pemex Ixtoc 1 disaster off the Yucatan peninsula in 1979 was far worse, lasted much longer, and received almost zero press in the United States, even though it impacted virtually every coastline in the Gulf of Mexico for over a year. The Deepwater Horizon spill was hyped far above and beyond its comparatively minor environmental impact for purely political reasons (i.e., it was used to fuel opposition to offshore drilling).
Correction: It's hard to analyze "worst oil spill" because there's so many factors involved beyond how long it lasted, including death and injuries that occurred. However, the 1979 event resulted in 140 million gallons spilt and the Deepwater Horizon spilt an estimated 206 million gallons and resulted in 11 deaths.
The Ixtoc 1 is still considered the worst accidental oil spill in history. Ixtoc 1 remained uncapped and freely flowing for 9 months, releasing over 3.5 Million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. That's barrels, not gallons. The only larger spill was in Kuwait, when Iraqi forces deliberately destroyed oil wells in that country, releasing 8 Million barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf. However, Kuwait is considered an "intentional" oil spill, not accidental.
Ixtoc 1 is only considered one of the worst spills, but not the number 1 worst spill. Deepwater Horizon released 4.9 Million Barrels (which is 40% more oil) and resulted in 11 deaths. Yes, Ixtoc 1 took 9 months to cap where Deepwater Horizon took only 5 months to cap, but the amount split was still less than Deepwater Horizon.
But Ixtoc was not a deep well, and its spillage was carried across the entire surface of the Gulf of Mexico for 9 months. The Deepwater Horizon was an extremely deep well, and much of its spillage remained in vast pools on the ocean floor, where it gradually degraded (yes, under extreme pressure and low temperature, crude oil will sink rather than rise to the surface). That fact also makes it impossible to estimate the total spillage of Deepwater Horizon. Nonetheless, some Deepwater Horizon spillage did rise to the surface, but not even nearly as much as the Ixtoc 1. Deepwater Horizon's environmental impact was negligible compared to Ixtoc 1; but, as stated in the original post, Deepwater Horizon was hyped and sensationalized in the press for political purposes.
10th Aug 2008
The Mummy (1999)
Corrected entry: There was no solar eclipse visible anywhere near the Middle East in 1923.
Correction: The eclipse was caused because Imhotep was regenerating. An event that happens in a fantasy, as a result of a fictional character's actions, cannot be considered a factual error.
Correction: "Magically" creating a solar eclipse would mean altering the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun. The earthquakes would be beyond imagination and the resulting tsunamis and devastating climate changes would wipe out the few survivors. Some things are beyond magic. This is one of them.
But using magic he could "easily" (at least judging by his powers in this film) cast a shadow over the sun - it doesn't have to be the moon. Especially given that the sun stays dark for a while, whereas natural eclipses are over quite quickly.
Actually creating a solar eclipse would require moving the moon, not the Earth. It's not "beyond magic", magic is magic.
Correction: The ancient Egyptians worshipped the Sun as their ultimate god, Ra. Given that their "magic" seemed to function remarkably well (well enough to resurrect desiccated mummies after 3000 years, anyway), there's a slight chance that the ancient Egyptians were slightly more in touch with the magic of celestial mechanics than we are today with our dogmatic Science. I mean, if it happened that they were correct about the Sun being a God, then perhaps they were knowledgeable in summoning the Sun's cooperation in their magical endeavors.
27th Aug 2001
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Corrected entry: At the end of BTTF, Doc, Marty and Jennifer take off for the future. In BTTF2, they arrive 30 years later and see themselves. Impossible! They would have been inside the time machine (as far as those left behind are concerned) for 30 years. Marty and Jennifer were gone from 1985 to 2015 as far as he and everyone else knows. I can prove this by using the first movie. When Einstein goes into the future one minute, he was gone for a minute as far as Doc and Marty were concerned, even though the trip was instantaneous to Einstein.
Correction: Wrong - the reason Einstein is completely gone for that minute is because he never goes back to the time he left. While Marty, etc. go 30 years into the future, they will eventually go back to 1985 and live the rest of their lives, therefore he can exist in the future.
The whole point and premise of BTTF is that Time is very surely linear, such that altering the past changes the future in such a way that time travellers can even erase themselves from existence. The BTTF story is not about alternate timelines, it's about the pitfalls of travelling in linear Time.
The way time travel works in the BTTF trilogy is that time jumps don't happen until we actually see them happen. Marty and Jennifer have not yet returned to 1985, so they obviously could not yet have lived out their lives to 2015. Also, the Marty we see in 2015 had his accident with the Rolls Royce, and when Marty finally does return to 1985 he avoids that accident, meaning that the Marty we see in 2015 can't possibly be from the timeline where Marty returned to 1985.
The original correction is correct. Everything happens simultaneously, for the time machine time doesn't matter whether it's the past of future. So the fact that Marty and Jen go back is important. Because going back makes it likes the travel to the future never happened. Because, and I want to make this absolutely clear, them returning means they travelled back in time again and that has more impact than only going to the future (which is what we are all doing all the time).
3rd Jan 2019
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Trivia: People speculate that HAL is a reference to IBM, as the letters differ by one position. Kubrick says this is a coincidence, but was concerned about IBM's reaction to the film's references, including the IBM logo on Bowman's spacesuit. However IBM had no problem as long as they weren't associated with the "equipment failure," or listed as technical advisors for the computer.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Despite decades of rumors regarding the relationship between Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and IBM, the fact is that IBM worked very closely with the production (assisting and advising on futuristic onscreen computer effects), and there was never any conflict or concern with IBM's reaction to the film.
20th Jan 2019
Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons (1967)
Visible crew/equipment: At the start of this episode a sniper lowers himself towards the President's window on a rope, watch the bottom right of the screen, you can see a hand lowering the puppet.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Having re-watched the beginning of this episode several times, I'm still not seeing the hand.
27th Dec 2009
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Corrected entry: Originally the film was going to end with the Starchild activating the nuclear launch platforms orbiting Earth, using the planet's destruction as a means to accelerate the evolution of mankind into its new universally intelligent form. Stanley Kubrick eventually decided against this as it was too similar to the ending of his previous film "Dr. Strangelove".
Correction: As author Arthur C. Clarke conceived the story, Dave Bowman transforms into the Starchild and instantaneously returns to Earth to become the planet's guardian. The Starchild arrives just as international tensions erupt into nuclear war; whereupon, the Starchild safely destroys the nuclear weapons, saving Mankind from itself. There was never any mention or intention of the Starchild destroying Earth.
6th Sep 2007
Animal House (1978)
Corrected entry: How on earth can Bluto and his mate not know that the exam paper they are completing is different to the one they stole and studied for? They'd have to study for it - what's the point of stealing it otherwise? It is not a multiple choice exam - they are writing answers out in full. How can they not notice that the questions (and therefore the answers) are different to the ones they memorised? The day after the exam Eric Stratton announces that Bluto had stolen the wrong EXAM, not the wrong ANSWERS. Why do they have to be told later that someone 'stole the wrong exam paper'? Nobody is so stupid - or lazy - that they would not notice that they are sitting the wrong exam. In order to make such a mistake they would have to be illiterate, not just stupid. And as the closing sequence makes clear the Delta House fraternity members aren't even stupid - they are just lazy.
Correction: The Deltas weren't trying to steal a copy of the exam for study; rather, they stole what they thought was a copy of answers to the exam. However, the Omegas planted a modified set of answers in the trash, which Bluto later retrieved from the dumpster. So, the exam would look exactly the same with the same questions, but the Deltas had memorized the wrong answers.
Correction: The answer lies in your submission. They are lazy, when they stole the exam, they looked up the answers and then memorized only the answers and not the questions. When taking the exam they did not bother to read the questions, just fill in the answers that they memorized.
As a teacher I have seen smart kids cheat off others because they too lazy to study, or studying wasn't a priority. One student was copying the answers from another student, but obviously couldn't read her writing and on a question about what what a certain group of people ate, she wrote "clouds."
In the case of Animal House, the Deltas had stolen what they believed were the answers to the exam, not knowing that the Omegas had planted fake answers in the trash.
The Deltas didn't look up the answers. They stole what they thought were the answers to the exam, not knowing that the Omegas had planted fake answers in the trash. So, the exam looked exactly the same, but the Deltas memorized the fake answers.
27th Oct 2017
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Character mistake: When Ronnie is cutting the article about Roy's encounter out of the newspaper, the title of the article begins with "UFO's...", the apostrophe making it possessive. It correctly should have been "UFOs...", with no apostrophe making it plural as intended.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You are incorrect. The article is actually correct. It is used as a contraction, not a possessive. http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/apostrophe.html.
It's not a contraction. A plural acronym is simply "s" added to the acronym. An apostrophe never indicates plurality.
Suggested correction: There is no standard on how to pluralize initialisms or acronyms and either way is acceptable, depending on a person's preference. An apostrophe does not automatically make something possessive, such as using apostrophes in contractions to replace missing letters.
Nope. In contractions joining two words, apostrophes only replace vowels (typically the letter "o," such as in "hasn't" or "wouldn't" or "isn't," and most obviously with "it's" replacing the letter "i" in "it is"). In this case, the acronym "UFOs" stands for "Unidentified Flying Objects," and there is no vowel to replace between the "t" and the "s" (in fact, an apostrophe wouldn't replace any letter at all). So, the contraction argument is invalid. Using an apostrophe for "UFO's" makes the acronym singular possessive (such as in "The UFO's movements were erratic").
It seems you missed the point of my comment. What you're stating is an opinion on how to pluralize initialisms and acronyms. While many lean towards just adding an "s", many real life publications back in the 70's did in fact use and "apostrophe s" for initialisms and acronyms. (Notice how 70's isn't possessive or a contraction. But many prefer using "70s.").
"Many publications" were wrong (especially in the late 1970s) and followed poor literary and journalistic standards. No, it's not a "matter of opinion"; throwing in apostrophes where they are not appropriate is a matter of poor education in the English language.
The question is not whether using the apostrophe is "correct" or "appropriate." It's whether it was used by publications in the '70s. It was, therefore it is not a mistake.
You should be more educated when stating opinions then, because it wasn't about being wrong. It was about no set standard. For example "The Chicago Manual of Style" would recommend UFOs while "The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage" would recommend UFO's. Of course, both would recommend using the apostrophe when making single letters plural "A's" or p's and q's."
The New York Times manual of style is predictably bogus. I'm a professor of Journalism (Southwest Texas State University 1979 to 1987). I know what is proper.
22nd Mar 2018
Jurassic Park (1993)
Corrected entry: Why aren't there subwayesque service tunnels all round the island to permit the staff to travel hidden from the dinosaurs/sundry other emergencies/all the other incidental occurrences that make every other undertaking on our planet use similar tunnels? Expensive and laborious, but if you have the resources to make dinosaurs, everything else is a breeze.
Correction: Despite Hammond's catchphrase of "We spared no expense", that would have been a huge expense, as underground tunnels suitable for travel are extremely costly. Also remember that Isla Nublar is a volcanic island. The ground may simply not be suitable for that kind of construction.
Correction: Given that "Jurassic Park" was author Michael Crichton's re-imagining of his own film "Westworld" (in which a high-tech amusement park goes haywire and the guests must run for their lives), the whole point of the movie was to place humans and dinosaurs on the same deadly-dangerous playing field. Like "Westworld," this movie was a purely visual film (a graphic novel, basically) that smoothed-over lapses of logic in favor of frantic spectacle. If John Hammond had the foresight to make his Jurassic Park a hermetically-sealed, perfectly-safe environment for humans to observe and maintain dinosaurs, it would have eliminated the thrill of the movie, turning it into a National Geographic documentary.
But the point is the park was safe, without Nedry's sabotage things would have worked perfectly. Hammond spared no expense and it shows with the fancy security. Because of this Nedry's sabotage was put in.
The fact that Jurassic Park could be sabotaged by a computer geek is proof that it was not perfectly safe. A perfectly-safe facility would be foolproof and sabotage-proof.
Any place can be sabotaged, the point is that it was safe enough to receive visitors, without the sabotage the inspection would have gone smoothly. Adding tunnels or even more security wouldn't change a thing. You are just making stuff up.
Correction: They didn't think about it. They didn't need to because they felt they had the place pretty well secured. Besides it wouldn't have helped them much anyway, once the fences were down the predators could get anywhere and a lot of the predators are small enough to get inside the tunnels, the velociraptors could even open doors. Most personnel was already gone so there is no lacking in their infrastructure that would require tunnels. This could have helped Dennis Nedry escape as well. He shut the park down to create chaos and move unseen.
23rd Aug 2018
The Meg (2018)
Corrected entry: Black smoker hydrothermal vents are generally found in areas where the sea floor is spreading, opening fissures. Would not be found in subduction zones as in the Marianas Trench where crust is being destroyed.
Correction: The Marianas Trench Marine National Monument (protecting over 95,000 square miles of marine ecosystems) was established in 2009 after some 20 hydrothermal vents and associated exotic marine habitats were discovered in this subduction zone. Even more hydrothermal vents have been discovered in the Marianas Trench since then. The fact is, deep-sea hydrothermal vents (such as "black smokers" and "white smokers") can be found anywhere there is volcanic activity, including subduction zones. In fact, footage has been captured of black smoker hydrothermal vents in the Marianas Trench as recently as 2017. http://earth-chronicles.com/science/new-footage-from-the-mariana-trench-black-smokers.html.
27th Dec 2018
Common mistakes
Stupidity: Ground troops armed with semi-auto handguns, automatic rifles and even heavy artillery just keep wasting ammo, barrage-after-barrage, magazine-after-magazine, against giant robots and monsters 100 feet tall, long after it becomes obvious that the weapons have zero effect. This is an ongoing stupidity dating back to some of the earliest giant monster movies, and is still seen in giant monster and superhero films today.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Surely in the face of a no-win scenario, doing something that may or may not work is better than doing nothing and awaiting your doom. They would be doing everything they could to stop the enemy in the hopes of saving lives. Even if it takes every last round of ammunition, it may eventually be enough to wear down the monster / robot etc.
I hate to disagree. I think one of the best examples is the latest Godzilla movie where they keep firing their hand guns on it knowing it would be better to just get out, there was absolutely no point to do that. Same goes for Man Of Steel.
In everything from old Godzilla movies to modern superhero and kaiju flicks, we see military forces line up and throw every bit of small arms and heavier artillery they have at the giant monsters or giant robots, with zero effect. The military always retreats, regroups, then lines up and wastes all their ammunition again, as if they learned absolutely nothing from the first experience.
In a no-win scenario, you beat a hasty retreat and live to fight another day, hopefully better armed and better prepared next time. You don't hold your ground, futilely trying to bring down a giant monster the size of a Hilton Hotel with small arms fire.
It's strange because I can understand why filmmakers still do this, even though it makes little sense. They are trying to show that the monster, robot, whatever is unstoppable by conventional means and honestly I don't know how you would do that without these kinds of scenes. Even though they are dumb. It's extra dumb to me when you hear the General yell "Stand your ground, men!" or something like that. Or when the cop runs out of bullets and throws his gun.
I've seen too many scenes where they keep shooting, apparently to no avail, BUT there is always the chance that hitting the "monster" in a certain spot could get it to retreat. Instead of just continuing to rapidly fire with the general intent of hitting the monster, it would make much more sense to focus on a possible soft spot, such as an eye. The "just keep firing" mentality does fall under "stupidity." The military should be using a strategy that is rational, and emptying machine guns isn't.
18th Oct 2004
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Corrected entry: In the scene where the Terminator shoots at the police with a revolving barrelled gun from a floor of the Cyberdyne building if you look closely you would see that the ammunition strip containing the bullets does not move. This is unusual considering spent shells were raining down from the gun. At least the strip should flip about a bit.
Correction: The revolving barrelled "mini-gun" has an ammunition supplied as correctly stated by a belt but it is housed in a flexible outer casing. The belt moves at such high speed due to the weapons massive rate of fire it needs this outer case to ensure a reliable supply of the belted ammunition, as exposed ammunition moving at such high speed could pose a danger to the operator and would easily be snagged against cover or other obstacles.
Correction: One possible reason why no movement would be visible could be the framerate at which the scene was recorded. Each time a frame was taken, the bullets also had moved down. A similar effect happens with helicopters that are being filmed, the rotors appear frozen while in reality, they obviously rotate around.
The effect you describe does not occur on film, but only in video. Film uses a much slower capture rate, while video uses a much faster capture rate, producing odd optical effects in video that do not appear in film.
This is not correct. The effect is called the wagon wheel effect and can be seen in countless old westerns. A higher frame rate is actually less likely to produce the effect.
29th Oct 2018
Westworld (1973)
Plot hole: There is a barely credible explanation for the fact that a guest cannot be injured or killed by being shot in Westworld, but what about the vicious fistfight we see in the bar? People are injured or killed in bar brawls all the time, and this one was incredibly violent. How do they prevent guests from being injured or killed by the cutting and stabbing weapons we see in Medieval and Roman World? Guests are supposed to fight each other, not just robots - they cannot be 'programmed' to lose! Delos is going be sued into bankruptcy within a week of the first guest arriving. Quite apart from the legal position, think about the bad publicity! Who is going to pay the huge fees demanded by the parks owners when the media is constantly reporting on the guests who wound up dead or with life changing injuries?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The explanation given in the TV show would seem to easily apply to the original film as well: guests can be injured, but not to the point that it would leave a lasting mark. The park has access to futuristic medical techniques, so they can heal most non-life-threatening injuries easily. Also the guests almost certainly sign waivers, so in the event of serious injury the park isn't liable.
Suggested correction: It's easy to nitpick the factual details of "Westworld," the screenplay of which was written on-the-fly on a fairly limited budget, even by early 1970s' standards. Author Michael Crichton (who also wrote "The Andromeda Strain," "The Terminal Man," "Congo," "Sphere," "Jurassic Park" and several other technological thrillers) himself acknowledged that Westworld was more a visual story (like a comic book) than a cerebral piece of science fiction, and he learned on this movie that suspension of disbelief outweighed technical or even factual details, if he wanted to expedite the story in an hour-and-a-half. Crichton said he was having more fun and devoting more time to shooting the film than actually writing it, comparing the experience to playing cowboys and indians as a child. So, yes, Westworld is not much more than an adult fantasy with a number of plot holes that we are supposed to gleefully overlook, rather than analyze.
Except for blatant continuity mistakes you just invalidated every single entry on this site.
Suggested correction: Westworld ensure that any interactions with the robots are entirely safe for the patrons of the park. They cannot prevent humans fighting amongst themselves, just as Disneyland can't prevent people fighting there. People are also injured or die all the time in horse-riding accidents, but that won't lead to people suing Westworld. Due to the nature of the park, all the guests likely sign a waiver stating that any injuries are not the fault of the park.
Utter rubbish. Guests who were completely innocent bystanders could be killed or injured by the actions of other guests, notably in the bar brawl or by the explosion used in the jailbreak. We see one guest smash a barstool against the back of another guest - not a robot - which could easily have broken his spine. There is no question whatever that the owners and managers of the park would be held liable in this and many other cases, just as amusement park owners and managers nowadays are held liable when roller coasters or other rides go awry, injuring or killing guests.
The most plausible explanation would be a waiver that visitors to the park have to sign. The waiver would explain that while the robots cannot harm humans, other humans can, and the park is not held responsible. In the event of death or serious injury, the guest who caused it would face criminal charges and possibly a civil lawsuit. But a waiver would protect the park. Also, the rules of the park may be similar to those in the HBO Westworld series, where the robots cannot cause a "permanent mark", meaning they can injure guests as long as the injury is repairable.
6th Apr 2017
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Stupidity: Early in the film, Peter Parker desperately wants to see Mary Jane's performance, but he is turned away at the theatre doors because he is a few minutes late. Defeated, Peter shuffles away and sulks. Seriously? Why couldn't Peter simply enter the theatre through a side door or the roof? He's Spider Man.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's two things to consider here. First, a major theme of the film is Peter struggling with keeping his Spider-Man and Peter Parker lives separate. Peter makes every attempt to get to the show on his own, as Peter by riding on his scooter. Simply breaking into the theater after he has been turned away would ruin the idea that keeping his two lives separate is a struggle. It would instead imply the opposite, that Peter can simply use his powers to solve his problems whenever it's convenient. Secondly, the usher makes it clear that no-one is to be admitted after the show has started as this would disturb the guests and possibly the performers as well. Sneaking into the theater could very well ruin the performance and Peter obviously wouldn't want that.
If there's one thing we know about Spider-Man, it's that he is incredibly stealthy, often coming and going without any detection whatsoever. He could have easily accessed the building and watched the show from a secluded vantage and even met Mary Jane backstage afterwards. Certainly in this case, using his powers would be justified, given that it was more important for Mary Jane to know Peter attended the show, rather than simply giving up.
He doesn't want to do any of that, though. He wants to go to the show as Peter, with a ticket, sit in a seat with the rest of the people, enjoy the show, and see Mary Jane afterwards. He stops the car chase as Spider-Man after his scooter is wrecked and instead of web-swinging to the theater, which would have been much faster, he chooses to change back into his regular clothes and drive the criminal's car. Sure, he certainly could have used his powers to get into the theater but the point is he doesn't want to. The fact that he chooses not to use his powers and instead deal with the consequences of hurting Mary Jane's feelings is the entire point.
And besides he'd probably get kicked out of the theater if he was caught.
13th May 2009
Stargate (1994)
Corrected entry: Dr. Jackson states that you need six points in a 3D volume to define a unique position. He then draws six points on the faces of a cube and connects the opposed pairs of points with lines, demonstrating that they all intersect to reveal the unique location. Whether this is really a good way to identify points in space is debatable, but even so, the technique he demonstrated requires only four points, not six. Any two lines that intersect do so at a unique point.
Correction: Four points could only produce two intersecting lines that define a certain coordinate in a 2-dimensional plane (a flat surface). Six points are required to produce three intersecting lines that define a certain coordinate in a third dimension (depth).
12th Dec 2018
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Corrected entry: The movie was a financial and critical bomb when it premiered.
Correction: While many viewers complained that the film was confusing and even boring, the critical reviews of "2001: A Space Odyssey" were mixed, with more than half praising Stanley Kubrick's monumental cinematic achievement as a landmark in filmmaking. Even the negative reviews acknowledged the movie's towering technical genius, while mainly deriding the flat dialogue, character development and puzzling final scenes. Negative reviews notwithstanding, the movie played continuously in theatres across the USA for over a hundred weeks straight and won numerous awards (including an Academy Award for visual effects, Bafta Awards for best cinematography, sound and art direction, and science fiction's Hugo Award for best dramatic presentation, among other awards) in 1969. Thus, it was far from being a "critical bomb," as asserted. Produced at a cost of $10.5 Million (a monster budget in the late 1960s and the most expensive movie Metro Goldwyn Mayer had ever produced up to that point), the film made back about $9 Million upon its release but went on to gross over $58 Million domestically and $12 Million internationally during its theatrical run, for a worldwide boxoffice of over $70 Million (or about seven times its production budget). Again, this was far from being the "financial bomb" you suggest.
3rd Dec 2018
Star Trek (1966)
This Side of Paradise - S1-E25
Corrected entry: A captain from the 2200's owns Samsonite luggage from the 20th century.
Correction: The original Star Trek series was actually produced on a very limited budget of about $250,000 per episode, and many of the props were re-purposed items from thrift stores. It was not uncommon to see all sorts of 20th Century items (clothing, luggage, dining room sets, household spray bottles, salt shakers, et cetera) on any given Star Trek set. Keep in mind that those items were chosen because they were rather futuristic in appearance to audiences of the mid-to-late 1960s, even though they appear whimsically anachronistic to our eyes, just 50 years later.
Also the characters have access to replicators and super computer databases. The cases could be 23rd century reproductions, classic antiques, etc.
17th Nov 2018
Star Trek (1966)
Plot hole: 300 years is just too long for the children to be on their own. How did they keep their clothes relatively clean for 300 years? Since the kids are playing all day they aren't out in the fields planting and harvesting crops for food, how did they eat?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: For the clothes, it's highly unlikely that they wore the same sets for 300 years. They are in a town/city and on a world that is mostly empty of most human life now. They can easily just find more clothing their size from other houses and even stores. As far as food, children are very good scavengers.
The issue of clothing is not so much an issue as is the issue of food. Given that the children are growing at an incredibly slow rate, their metabolism is probably much, much, much slower and would require far less sustenance.
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.