Question: After the Predator gets out of the water and walks past Dutch, it sees some small animal (not sure what) and kills it. Since it kills for sport, targets experts with weapons, why kill a defenceless animal? (01:20:00)
TedStixon
9th Nov 2024
Predator (1987)
Answer: It simply might have seen killing a different animal as yet another "trophy." Especially if it hunts for sport and is on a different planet. I know a few people who hunt for "sport," and many of their targets are non-dangerous, defenceless animals that could not realistically fight back. It's just... a thing for some people.
Except that the Yautja only kill people who have weapons. The animal was defenceless, and it wouldn't have been very, what the Yautja perceive, as being honourable.
The issue is that you're going by logic established in sequels/spin-off material and trying to retroactively connect it. Nothing in the original movie explicitly states this. Even the name you're using, "Yautja," wasn't coined until a spin-off novel that came out seven years later. Sometimes sequels and spin-offs will "rewrite the rules" and retcon from the original, thus creating small inconsistencies. You just have to accept that it's something that happened in this movie, even if it contradicts future series "lore." You can't really fault it for not lining up with sequels they didn't even know would exist when they made it.
17th Feb 2022
Happy Death Day 2U (2019)
Deliberate mistake: When Tree turns on the magnetic medical equipment, it's somehow strong enough to yank a big, heavy wheelchair up and pin Gregory in only a split-second, but not strong enough to instantly pull the screwdriver out of Tree's hand? Obviously this was done so Tree could have a cool moment where she lets go of the screwdriver and it impales Gregory... but it makes no real sense.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It does make sense. The wheelchair wasn't secured and contained lots of metal, so it was immediately pulled towards the scanner. The screwdriver had a lot less metal, and Trew was holding it very tightly, and she knew what was about to happen, so she should strengthen her grip even more, allowing her to keep hold of it.
Preposterous. Depending on how they're set, MRI magnets can yank entire hospital beds clear across the room, and even once killed a man by setting off a concealed gun he was carrying. There's no way she was holding onto that thing.
18th Jun 2022
Predator (1987)
Plot hole: After Blaine gets killed and the group hose down the forest, Poncho goes and checks for the enemy. He comes back and says he didn't find tracks or blood "We hit NOTHINGGG." Now, while he would be looking for red blood, he certainly should have noticed at least the glowing Predator blood (made from glow stick fluid - widely used by the military and public alike at the time) easily visible on the large leaf, and deduced that came from something - perhaps the enemy soldier had a glow stick.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't a plot hole. The plot of the movie isn't broken because of this. It's an assumption that he "should have noticed" the predator blood but he might not have. And if he had, and had discounted it, it would only be a character error not to have mentioned it.
A plot hole doesn't strictly need to "break" the plot to count as a plot hole. The term most often refers to instances when a film contradicts its own sense of internal logic. For example, something happening that contradicts something else that was already established, vital information being left out, or a character acting way out of character for the benefit of the plot. In this case, this absolutely could count as a plot hole.
11th Jun 2003
Scream 3 (2000)
Other mistake: On the back cover of Scream 3 in the Scream trilogy on DVD, the town of the original killings is referred to as Greensboro twice. The correct name of the town is Woodsboro, of course.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I'm not "correcting" this per se, but I'm wondering if there should be either a separate type of mistake for things like DVD/Blu-Ray cases or posters (Ex. "Multimedia and Marketing Mistakes" or something like that), or if these things would be better classified as trivia? Especially since it's not something everyone can necessarily observe watching the movie itself. (Ex. My Blu-Ray and 4K releases don't have this mistake.) If not, feel free to downvote/delete this. I've just seen a few of these mistakes over the years here, and it always seems a little off to me since it's not something wrong with the film itself.
I agree these aren't valid movie mistake if the studio wasn't involved in the mistake. It could be trivia if only certain home releases had them. These mistakes are like when episodes are aired out of order creating continuity issues,, streaming services make changes, or closed captioning (not subtitles) gets something wrong. It can't be considered a mistake of the film or TV series.
It's tricky - largely, if I'm honest, because adding new types to the site is incredibly fiddly. :-) There's also room for endless debate about what's a "mistake", whether it's about assigning specific blame or just looking for interesting stuff. Likewise things that can only be seen in slow motion, which arguably warrant a category to themselves because there are plenty of them, but then the "mistakes" section gets cluttered. Becomes a user interface issue as much as anything! Will think.
I'm not disagreeing with this post, it's the only way I can reply. But yes, for the first run of the VHS and the DVD of Scream 3, there is that typo on the back cover. Now knowing that, is that version worth more money?
While misprints can sometimes add to something's value, I don't think this would necessarily make this release more valuable. Perhaps the VHS version just because there is something of a collector's market for VHS tapes now. But the movies have been released on DVD, Blu-Ray and 4K so many times, I don't see the DVD version being worth significantly more. (Unless you find a really weird collector who would specifically want THAT version.)
Yes, there is that typo. They were the first run of the VHS.
I didn't say there wasn't a typo. I was questioning whether a typo on the cover would technically qualify as a movie mistake, since it's not part of the actual film.
9th May 2023
The Conjuring (2013)
Corrected entry: In the movie, Ed and Lorraine Warren are depicted as a younger middle-aged couple when the real Warrens were retirees who died before this film was made.
Correction: This isn't a documentary. It's a highly fictionalized retelling of their cases, which themselves are just dubious claims. This film also takes place in 1971 when the Warrens would have been in their mid-40s, and Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga weren't far off in age at the time of filming. Also, Lorraine Warren didn't die until 6 years after this film came out.
Documentary or film, makes little difference. The fact is that images of the real Warrens in the 1970s were an older couple as mentioned, while the actors in the films are considerably younger in their late 30s to 40s, where respectively age consideration should have lined up but did not.
Ed and Lorraine Warren were both around 45 in 1971 when the film takes place. Both of the actors were around 40 when the film was made and released. That's not a big difference in age. Just because they look a little bit younger doesn't make it a mistake. You're not going to be able to find actors who look EXACTLY like the real people. Also, how does the date the Warrens died have any impact on the movie? The movie takes place in 1971... not the present day.
Correction: It actually does make a difference when it comes to documentary vs. fiction, because this film isn't intended to be a true-to-life depiction, particularly as the real Warrens were con artists. This falls under artistic license. This film also features unequivocal evidence for the supernatural, including ghosts, demonic possession, and violations of laws of physics, none of which are true to the real world. Given all that, the fact that the Warrens look more youthful here isn't a movie mistake.
3rd May 2023
Saw (2004)
Question: One thing I have never understood through the entire series is Dr Gordon's test. To pass his test, Dr Gordon has to kill Adam by 6 if not his family is killed and he is left to rot. At 6 Zep calls saying he failed his test. He then cuts his foot off, shoots and wounds Adam. The film end with him having crawled to get help and jigsaw shutting the door on Adam. In Saw 7 we see Jigsaw helped him and he became an accomplice. Why did jigsaw not kill him or leave him to die as he failed his test.
Answer: The movies don't directly address this. But in my personal opinion, even though he didn't do everything on time, Jigsaw recognized that Dr. Gordon ultimately was willing to make the sacrifices he had to in order to save his family. He also spent hours in the room listening to Gordon and Adam talking, and likely realised that Gordon was a good man despite his faults. So I personally believe that even though he didn't "pass his test" per se, Jigsaw had grown enough respect for Gordon that he saved him. (And indoctrinated him).
Is Hoffman dead or alive?
That's unknown at this point in time.
20th Feb 2018
The Legend of Tarzan (2016)
Trivia: Early in the movie, when George is speaking to John, he says, "Me Tarzan, you Jane." Even though this line has been synonymous with the character Tarzan, it has actually never been said by Tarzan at all in any movie or any stories written about Tarzan's adventures. This is officially the first time the line is used.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Johnny Weissmuller said it in his Tarzan movies.
This is actually a popular misconception. Johnny Weissmuller never actually said it in any of his Tarzan movies. He said it during an interview where he was describing the character. But he never actually said it onscreen during any of the movies. So the trivia is 100% correct.
21st Oct 2023
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Question: Once cured and returned home, won't some of the villains, like the Lizard, still go to jail anyway?
Answer: More than likely... but that doesn't strictly matter. They'll still have been cured, avoided death, and "saved" in a sense. Even if they lose their freedom, they still are going to have a happier ending than they would have otherwise.
Remember that Oscorp is a corrupt company in the Amazing series. More than likely, both Connors and Dillon might be killed in prison under orders, so some happy ending.
That's a very bold assumption to make, especially considering they DIDN'T kill Connors after the events of the original "Amazing Spider-Man." At most, Connors will remain in prison. But I don't even know about Dillon. There's an exceedingly high chance he could just walk, especially presuming he'd be teleported back to around the time he was originally killed, and the world would think he's dead.
5th Dec 2023
General questions
For a period of time starting in the mid-2000s, it became common for most major DVD releases to have both 1- and 2-disc editions. Typically, the 2-disc edition just had more bonus content and cost a few dollars more, while the 1-disc edition had less content and was cheaper. I never understood this. This was before streaming became huge, so it didn't incentivize buying the DVD, nor did the 2-disc edition cost much more, so it couldn't have had much impact on profit. So why was this even a thing?
Answer: OP here. From everything I've been able to find, it pretty much just looks like it was just a bit of a gimmick. Put some extra bonus content on a second disc, call it a "Special Edition" or "Collector's Edition" or "Limited Edition," and charge an extra $5 for it. People who wanted just the movie could buy the single disc for the standard price, and people who wanted more special features paid a slightly more expensive "premium price." And it would subtly boost profits.
I think you're right - the extra content largely existed already, there was no significant cost to produce it, and mastering a second version of the DVD wouldn't cost much in the grand scheme of things either, so any extra amount would have been pure profit. Showgirls (first example I found) apparently made $37m in cinemas and $100m in DVD sales. A couple of extra dollars per unit would add up. It might also serve as "anchoring" if that's the right term - having a more expensive 2 disc version makes the single disc version look like better value to the casual buyer (while also appealing more to the movie buff). There are certainly some films I splashed out on for the fancier version because I was a fan (and then of course never really watched the extras much!), but going back a while there was literally no other way to see this extra content unless you bought the special edition.
From the perspective of why they were simultaneously released (and with a relatively small difference in price), I'd agree. But this is different from why two-disc versions were released some time after the one-disc version (and with a substantial difference in price). That is, the reasons why this initially happened are different from why it continued to happen.
I was trying to refer to concurrent releases in my question. Unfortunately, the character limit meant I could not give any examples. I was referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Transformers." I used to go to the store at midnight to buy new DVD releases around the time those movies came out, and there would almost always be a single disc DVD with just the movie and a few features, and a 2-Disc set with more special features released on the same day. (A 2-disc special/anniversary edition being released a few years later for an older title makes sense, and is a different matter entirely. I'm referring to when multiple editions of the same new release were put out at the same time.)
Yes, I finally figured this out! You are asking about a specific time period and looking for a straightforward answer, without putting things in historical perspective (the developing technology and decreasing costs of mass-producing DVD movies). The extras (plus a little more) that used to be included on the standard editions were now on a second disc with the package costing about $5 more. It probably came down to "will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?"
It probably came down to 'will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?' "and unfortunately when I was a teenager, I was, hahahaha. But yeah, the more I look into it, the more it does just seem like a total gimmick. (I feel like a good modern comparison might be steelbooks... cool packaging, but usually sold for a very high markup even though it's the same exact discs.)
My "victimization" came much earlier. I had the standard release versions of movies and, later, when I started to see much more expensive two-disc versions, I thought, "Who would buy these now?" Well, I think I ended up buying 3 versions of "Terminator 2." [Why?]
Answer: From my experience, the 2-disc versions provided two different formats. Typically, the 1-disc version was Fullscreen and, depending on its release, did have additional content like commentaries and deleted scenes. The 2-disc version included a Widescreen version as well as extra materials, extended cuts, remastered versions, or special edition, etc. Later, when Blu-Ray came out, the 2-disc set usually included a standard DVD version. Some DVDs were sold as 2-sided without a lot of extra content but having a Fullscreen and Widescreen version.
This doesn't really answer the question. I'm not referring to those. I'm more so referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Super 8". Their DVDs only came in widescreen, but had two versions. A single-disc edition with just the movie and a few special features, and a 2-disc edition that had more special features. I'm curious as to WHY many titles had single and two-disc editions with the only difference being the amount of special features. It just seems more logical to release just the 2-disc edition. This answer basically just explains that 2-disc existed.
I apologise for misunderstanding the question, because what you described in my experience was atypical. And in my opinion, it makes sense to release two versions, but I'm afraid to answer why if I turn out to still not understand the question.
No problem. It's a very weird, specific question, hahaha. Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't even really an answer beyond just "they decided to try it for some reason."
Answer: Simply put MONEY.
Profits are almost always, if not always, a factor. The two-disc versions with "extras" might have been enough to get certain movie buffs to buy them, even though they already had the single-disc version - but I doubt very many people actually did so.
22nd Nov 2023
Batman Begins (2005)
Question: How did the League of Shadows use economics to attack Gotham?
Answer: By having their own people working inside the trading company, they would do a pump and dump. Take a small company, put the word out that it's the next big thing, watch the prices rise, then sell. Like insider trading, the millionaires become billionaires, while the billionaires become broke.
Answer: They used their influence to trigger the economic depression that was gripping Gotham when Bruce was a child.
What type of influence did they have?
It's never specified in the film, so any answer would be pure speculation. They merely say they attacked Gotham economically in the past. I'd presume they'd use power and threats to do things like tank companies, make people lose their jobs, increase homelessness, make it more difficult for people to get help, etc. Basically, just ruin the citizens financially.
6th Sep 2004
UHF (1989)
Corrected entry: At the very end of the movie when the main character's in a different setting, there are thick black lines in the background, but when George Newman says, "I knew she was gonna say that." and they kiss, the lines are gone. (01:31:05)
Correction: It's a fantasy, all happening in George's head. Anything can happen.
Being a fantasy sequence doesn't make a scene exempt from mistakes.
18th Sep 2023
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
The Maternal Congruence - S3-E11
Corrected entry: Sheldon tells Leonard and Penny that he had inflatable lawn decorations as a child (in the late 80s/early 90s). Those weren't invented until 2001.
Correction: Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. I had inflatable decorations back in the 90s, and there were absolutely inflatable lawn decorations in the 80s. You can still buy some inflatable 80s decoration secondhand on sites like eBay. "Modern" inflatables like balloons date back 200 years, and the air-inflation process had been used prior to that even. I can only presume you're referring to the more current in-vogue inflatables that use fans... but even those existed before 2001, albeit they weren't as widely used. (Ex. The StarLab inflatable planetarium that many schoolchildren still experience to this day uses the same basic fan system and was invented in the 1970's.)
I researched my answer. Can you provide more info on yours?
How could you have possibly done research on inflatables and come to the conclusion that inflatable decorations were invented in 2001? My info is that I literally owned some, and you can still find plenty second-hand online. Go to Etsy and search "vintage inflatable" and there are currently multiple inflatable decorations that date from the 80s and earlier that people are selling secondhand.
Correction: He says he had an inflatable Santa Claus, but nothing to suggest it was an "air blown" version that you seem to be talking about.
Inflatable means you blow air into it.
Yes, but it doesn't mean to blow air into constantly with a portable fan. That's why kids before 2001 had beach balls and other inflatable pool toys. What you seem to be describing or alluding to are called "Gemmy Airblown Inflatables," introduced in 2001.
Very true, Bishop. And even then... the technology Gemmy Airblown Inflatables use existed long before 2001. As I said in my response, it's the same basic tech used for things like inflatable planetariums. I'm confused as to what MovieFan612 is getting at. They seem to be indicating that inflatable decorations in general didn't exist before 2001... which is just factually wrong.
10th Jun 2020
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Question: In the final sequence, Buffalo Bill turns off the lights. After agent Starling shots Buff Bill, the lights come back on immediately. How are they turned on?
Answer: She empties her revolver to kill Bill. As she does, she also shoots out of the window behind him. This is shown in the film.
I had the same question. The lighting doesn't look like coming from a window – a basement window.
I mean, obviously it's probably too much light to be coming out of the window realistically. But in the context of the movie, Clarice has just conquered the villain and saved the day, so having the light be bright is likely also a bit of a stylistic thematic choice. Light is associated with "good," and she has moved "out of the darkness," so to speak. So, they had the scene lit nice and brightly.
12th May 2017
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Question: How did The Green Goblin get captured and sent to Ravencroft after he killed Gwen?
Answer: Peter could have webbed him up and called the police anonymously.
Very likely. However, there was a deleted scene in which Peter, out of anger over Gwen's death, almost beats Harry to death.
Yes. We also see Goblin getting knocked out when all hell breaks loose, and the gears all break apart. Chances are, Peter just webbed him up. (Although, as the other response says, he also got beaten up in a deleted scene.)
29th Sep 2003
Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)
Revealing mistake: In the scene where Johnny Depp is searching Cheech Marin by the river, you can see Cheech breathing, even though he is supposedly dead from the gunshot in the scene before.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is a feature on the DVD that shows the making of this scene, and that a dummy was used.
Incorrect. What they did was use digital effects to blend the fake eye socket of the dummy onto a shot of the real Cheech Marin because the dummy didn't look real enough in close-up. So, that actually is Cheech Marin, and you can, in fact, see him lightly breathing once or twice. The only part of the dummy you can see in these shots is the area immediately around his right eye, where they blended footage of the dummy in. They specifically said on the DVD that the dummy didn't look real enough to be used on its own. I'm not sure how you could have missed that part on the special feature because they show how they blended the two shots.
22nd Oct 2014
Halloween: Resurrection (2002)
Factual error: As we see in some of this series, Michael pins his victims to the wall with butcher knives. A kitchen knife isn't capable of holding a person's body weight pinned to a wall.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Sure, it can. If it's a full tang knife jammed hard enough into a stud, especially given Michael's seemingly superhuman strength, it could definitely support a body.
No. There wouldn't be enough knife jammed in the stud to support a body. The average man has a chest depth of about 10", and Michael is shown using regular-sized kitchen knives, which are typically 6-12" in length... and that includes the handle. Honestly, none of the knives Michael uses would realistically be long enough to go all the way through a man's chest, let alone embed themselves into the wall behind the victim. So it's 100% impossible as depicted. This is simply a suspension of disbelief situation where the filmmakers knowingly included something completely unrealistic and impossible because it was a great visual. So it's 100% a mistake... but it's a cool mistake because it looks great on camera.
27th Oct 2017
Hannibal (2001)
Trivia: "The Silence of the Lambs" director Jonathan Demme was approached to direct and had expressed interest in directing a sequel for some time before the publication of the novel. However, he opted not to return, feeling the novel was too gory and excessive compared to "Silence..." and he didn't feel it would make a good film. Producer Dino de Laurentiis also suggested that Demme was also nervous to make a sequel, given the first film's reputation as potentially one of the greatest films ever made. "Silence of the Lambs" star Jodie Foster also refused to return, feeling the character of Clarice Starling was "betrayed" in the novel of "Hannibal."
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: According to Jodie Foster, she didn't return due to a scheduling conflict with another film.
Foster herself has said that the "scheduling conflict" excuse was just the polite "official" reason she went with to not throw shade at the production, but wasn't the actual reason. A lot of times, "scheduling conflict" is used as a fall-back explanation when someone drops out of a project. Her intense disliking of the original novel and first few drafts of the script is very well-known, and why she turned it down.
23rd Apr 2009
X-Men (2000)
Question: Jean and Storm combine their powers to get Wolverine to the top of The Statue of Liberty. Why is this? Wouldn't Jean's telekinesis be sufficient enough to levitate Wolverine to the top without Storm's power?
Chosen answer: Jean's powers were not that powerful at the time.
But they were powerful enough to lift cars, water, etc. when she was like 7.
It's more that she doesn't have enough control over it.
In addition to what Lionhead said, Xavier also says he altered her mind in "X-Men: The Last Stand" by creating psychic barriers to lock out the Phoenix personality, which also seemed to have altered her memory. So it's entirely possible (and likely) her overall power reduced when that happened, and didn't start to fully come back until the events of "X2."
20th Jul 2023
The Fifth Element (1997)
Corrected entry: When Leeloo escapes the lab by ripping through the wall, it's painfully obvious that the presumably "metal" wall is just made out of regular old tinfoil or a similar substance. It bends and breaks super easily, seems to be paper-thin, and tellingly, you can even see a bit sticking out at the end of the shot and the other side of it isn't painted... it's just the classic tinfoil "silver" color.
Correction: It is not meant to be a metal wall. It's not the outer wall of the room, just encased around the regeneration tube. It's possibly equivalent to MLI (Multi-Layer Insulation) used in astronautics. That is also gold on one side and silver on the other.
I did not know about MLI. Thanks for mentioning that. That actually would explain it very well. It always drove me nuts how cheap and flimsy it looked, but if it's meant to be something like MLI, it 100% makes sense.
11th Jul 2023
General questions
I remember seeing a film in theatres in the 90s when I was a kid. I think it was a children's sports film. I seem to recall there being a scene where a boy spots another boy through a gap in a shelf at the store and remarks something like, "What a hunk!" At least I think it was two boys... one may have been a tomboyish girl, though. And I think it had something to do with football. Ring anyone's bell? Trying to rewatch childhood movies and it just popped into my head.
Answer: Sounds like the movie Little Giants.
Looked it up and that is 100% it. Thanks.
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: The creature it shoots at is a Coati. It shoots at it as it’s looking for Dutch using infrared and mistakes the animal for Dutch, possibly thinking the rest of him is obscured by the log, knowing Dutch is trying to hide. It misses the animal, though.
lionhead