Question: At the start, she was to drive the truck to get gas. She never got there, and yet was able to drive all over. How?
TedStixon
14th Jul 2023
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Answer: What she did most likely took months of planning. Who she could trust to help her. How exactly she could smuggle the girls out, and most importantly, gaining the trust of the boss to the point where he believed she was his obedient slave who could never betray him.
Answer: Nobody knew the war rig was full of gas. They thought she was going to fill the tanker and come back, not smuggle out the girls.
Sorry, can't believe that. The boss guy controlled everything. He would know where and how much gas there was. Also, lowering the truck empty would be a lot different than lowering it fully loaded.
The truck was supposed to be empty when it left. She was taking an empty tank to be filled, but smuggled the wives inside. It weighed probably 300 pounds more than it was supposed to, but that would be imperceptible to the people operating the elevator. The war rig likely weighs several tons.
It's not empty, it is filled with water. The wives were hiding in the tractor.
11th Jul 2023
General questions
It seems to me that older shows, for the most part, had more "stand-alone" episodes: you could easily watch them if you missed the previous episode or two. If I am correct, this is why characters often had new love interests for just one episode. Nowadays, a show is often called a "series" and all episodes must be watched, even a "Previously on..." recap doesn't cover everything. Any thoughts on why this is?
Answer: Well, in the old days, people couldn't really watch whenever they wanted or even record what they wanted to see. So trying to follow a continuing show was a lot harder. That's why there were way more shows where every episode was standalone, as you didn't have to bother watching every single one to be able to follow it. You could skip a few without a problem. These days, watching all episodes is a lot easier because of recording and digital releases. You can watch whenever you want, in the right order.
Answer: There's a lot of factors that go into this. I think the biggest one is that seasons in general have gotten shorter, meaning there is less room for stand-alone episodes. It used to be the norm for shows to have 20+ episodes per season, whereas now, seasons with 13 or fewer episodes are more common. (This is for many reasons, including higher production costs, viewership fluctuations, streaming making shorter seasons more in vogue, etc.) And as a result, many shows now just basically feel like one big movie that's split up into chapters/episodes since there's less time for side-stories or stand-alone episodes. There's good and bad to this. On one hand, it means shows need to be more efficient and concise, and there's likely to be fewer dull moments. But on the other hand, it also means that there's slightly less time for side-characters, sub-plots, world-building, etc. So it's a double-edged sword. Also, "show" and "series" have always been used interchangeably. That's nothing new.
I don't remember what year it was, but if I understand correctly, one of the results of one of the writers' strikes a while back was reduced episodes to make a complete season or a half season (with some exceptions, like daily shows).
Yeah, from what I recall, during the 2007 writers' strike, a lot of seasons had to be produced with fewer episodes due to lost time from the several months the strike lasted. And that did help set a certain precedent that many shows could be successful with fewer episodes per season. Although, I think it wasn't really until about five years later that you started to see shorter seasons becoming more widespread.
Answer: I also think another point is, there's just so many more shows being produced today, so we see more examples of these types of series shows. And, if more shows are being produced, there's more competition to get viewers to watch live (as opposed to recording to a DVR or streaming). Companies that buy ad time during a show know if viewers are recording, they can skip their ads (which is why we see more countermeasures to this).
Answer: Adding to the other answers: In TV's earliest days (from the 1950s), shows had more episodes per season, over 30. During the summer hiatus, fewer reruns were shown until the new Fall season. That resulted in self-contained episodes and one-time characters or situations that were rarely mentioned again. Episodes could be shown in any order, without losing continuity. The half-hour sitcoms were like extended skits. Many early TV shows were written by radio-era writers when maintaining a consistent, non-visual storyline was more challenging. It was just a different way of doing things. As TV evolved, plots became extended throughout a season with fewer episodes. Keeping viewers involved and guessing what happens in the next episode helps ratings.
12th Aug 2010
Poltergeist (1982)
Corrected entry: In the opening sequence, when Dana is in bed and hears Carol Anne say, "Hello, I can't hear you", for some reason there is a prosthetic leg lying across Dana's bed. (00:03:45)
Correction: It's just Dana's leg.
Yup, she just has it at an awkward angle, but it's 100% her leg. Not sure how the OP thought it was a prosthetic leg to begin with. There's literally no reason for a prosthetic leg to be in the shot when they could easily use the actress' leg, and it looks far too real to be a prosthetic from an 80's movie.
26th Apr 2022
Scream (2022)
Question: Why can Liv McKenzie not go to see Tara Carpenter, her co-worker/close friend after her near-murder attack? Her absence is done to draw suspicion on her, but as she is later revealed to not be the killer, the question is left unanswered in the film. (00:15:45)
Answer: To try to throw them off the scent and add suspicion to make us think maybe possibly they're the killer(s).
This answer is literally part of the question. The question mentions that this was done to make the character seem suspicious. The question was asking why, in the context of the film, can't Liv go to see Tara. Not why in a behind-the-scenes sense.
Answer: It's never explained in the film, so any answer would be pure speculation. As you said, it was obviously done to draw suspicion onto her by the filmmakers, but there's any number of reasons she might not be able to, so really it's a case of picking your poison. (Perhaps she had a previous appointment she couldn't miss, perhaps she has a family matter to attend to, etc).
19th Mar 2023
The Whale (2022)
Corrected entry: Mary may have "fought hard" to gain full custody of Ellie, but - even if Charlie did "leave them" to be with his "lover" - Charlie should have still gotten at least court-ordered regular supervised visits with his daughter over the years, not shut off from maintaining a relationship with his biological daughter.
Correction: Fathers often get the 'short end of the stick' in custody battles. It is entirely possible that Charlie was denied even supervised visitation. Especially if the judge was extremely conservative.
Especially if the judge was conservative and anti-gay. Plenty of them around.
Charlie was not physically or sexually abusive toward his daughter Ellie (two major reasons to deny any visitation), so I have to disagree.
I'm not sure how you could disagree. Women are 4X more likely to get primary custody than men, and it's really not unheard of for a parent to get little-to-no custody/visitation even if they weren't abusive to the child. Ex. My father was not abusive towards me, but I only saw him for a few hours every other week because that's just how the arrangement worked out. (Which in retrospect was good because he had other issues and I shouldn't have been around him more than that. But at the time it hurt.)
11th May 2006
Scream (1996)
Question: Why did Billy and Stu want to kill Tatum? I've read that she said Stu was bad in bed, but when does she say this in the movie?
Answer: They didn't have anything against Tatum specifically, her death was just necessary for their scary movie plan against Sidney. They also said that anyone who isn't a virgin dies in a scary movie, and we know Tatum wasn't a virgin.
Did they say "anyone who isn't a virgin"? I thought it was anyone who has sex *during* the horror movie events - not including people who were *already* not virgins.
Typically, the cliche is "sex or promiscuity = death." I don't think it necessarily has to be during the events of the movie. Debating the minutiae is probably just gonna make us run in circles.
Answer: I don't understand why people are getting hung up on the virgin thing. Sure, there are some movies where someone who isn't a virgin survives. But the common cliche in horror that everyone knows is that sex typically equals death. Doesn't matter if some movies don't follow the cliche... it's still the cliche, and Stu and Billy are operating by the cliches.
In addition to this, Stu and Billy were planning to be the two survivors and make "the sequel." They probably viewed themselves as the main characters. Tatum was one of the "side characters" who would typically be killed.
Except even in this movie, Sidney should be dead by that logic. While Randy is explaining that rule, Sid is upstairs breaking said rule with Billy.
Answer: But Amy Steel's Ginny in Friday the 13th Part 2 wasn't a virgin and she survived. Yet these guys claim to know horror movies.
It's just a TV trope used in the movie.
6th Jul 2004
Ginger Snaps (2000)
Corrected entry: If Bridgette knew that she was going to become a werewolf after she mixed her sister's blood with her own, why didn't she kill herself after she killed her sister?
Correction: She only infected herself to get her sister to come with her, then her plan was to "cure" Ginger, then herself. She didn't originally plan to kill Ginger.
I believe the point of the entry was that even though Ginger's death was accidental, that Bridgette still should have killed herself to insure that she wouldn't become a werewolf and start killing too.
19th Jul 2021
Men in Black (1997)
Other mistake: The first time the neuraliser is used it shows hours, weeks and years. But at the end of the film the lead character tells J to remember that it's "days, months, years." (00:08:06 - 01:24:52)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Perhaps there are different models of neuralyzers.
I don't think arguing "perhaps such-and-such" is necessarily strong enough of a reason to correct a mistake. Nothing in the movie indicates they are different models, so it's probably best to assume they're the same.
17th Feb 2023
Gremlins (1984)
Question: Why does Billy not tell anyone about his teacher's attack?
Answer: Gremlins have hatched and are about to start attacking the town and he's trying to stop them. Reporting a corpse is relatively low-priority in comparison to that.
The gremlins didn't start attacking the town until late at night but Mr. Hanson's murder occurred during the daytime. There would still be plenty of time to call the police and inform them of Hanson's death.
Again, it's low-priority, and there is definitely not "plenty of time." Billy realises that the cocoons have hatched and has to rush home to save his mom, and then Stripe immediately escapes, so he has to follow Stripe and try to stop him... and then Stripe multiplies and Billy realises the town is about to be overrun. Reporting a corpse can wait. Would you stop and take the large amount of time needed to report a dead body when your mother is in mortal danger or the town is about to be overrun?
10th Dec 2001
The Crow (1994)
Corrected entry: If it has been a year since Eric and Shelley's death, who the hell has been feeding the pedigree house cat, which would be incapable of hunting for itself, for the last year to keep it at its same size?
Correction: Cats though domesticated are still wild animals. I know from experience that a cat can fend for himself when it is needed. Plus there are people who leave food out for stray animals.
Correction: I have an indoor house cat who's never been allowed outside unsupervised or without a leash, and despite the fact she's pampered and doesn't have to fend for herself... she definitely still can. She catches (and eats) mice every time we get any in the house, is a keen hunter and is super cautious and territorial when she needs to be. She still has all of her survival instincts. So yes, house cats can definitely thrive and survive without their owner around. Especially in an apartment building like Eric's where she could easily get in and out.
Correction: The young girl, their friend kept coming back to feed the cat.
She specifically says "I thought you were dead" when she finds the cat, implying she hasn't seen it in quite some time. She also had to break into the building just to get inside. She definitely wasn't coming there to feed it.
Sorry meant the young girl.
28th May 2007
The Monster Squad (1987)
Corrected entry: They make a big scene that a virgin is needed to read the text from Van Helsing's diary in order to get rid of the monsters. After Patrick's sister fails because it turns out she isn't a virgin, everyone freaks out until they realize Phoebe could help them out. Not once is it mentioned the virgin had to be a female. So why couldn't the 12 year old boys read from the diary and get rid of the monsters?
Correction: First: 4 out of 5 definitions listed for "virgin" refer to females. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/virgin Second: In all of mythology and folklore, virgin always refers to females. The gods asked for a virgin to be sacrificed, the women/girls were gathered not the people that have never had sex. When some bit of folklore needs to be read aloud by a virgin, odds are they are asking for a girl.
You would be correct in the correction, however that doesn't explain how Scary German Guy can summons the vortex. And yes I will say that because when Dracula was going after Phoebe, Scary German Guy was still reciting the text yet Phoebe wasn't repeating it, just whimpering. Yet the vortex still showed up.
But Phoebe repeated the exact phrase the peasant girl did in the opening scene, those seem to be the key words that unlock the vortex.
I understand where you're coming from, but I'd disagree. Looked up a couple clips of the scene on YouTube, and they make a point of showing Phoebe repeating most of the words near-perfectly (at least as close to perfectly as a small child under distress could do) between whimpers. And I think you could make a compelling argument that even if she doesn't say them all 100% perfectly - say she's just barely whimpering some of them out between cries - it'd still count for the spell.
I disagree. I've watched this movie hundreds of times. All we hear is her whimpering because she's scared. No indication is given that she's still talking.
I just looked up the scene again. They show her repeating the words perfectly and completing the spell after Frankenstein throws Dracula away from her. There's really only a few seconds in the entire scene when we hear her whimpering instead of saying the words perfectly. I still think it's within reason to argue that she did enough for the spell to work, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.
12th Jan 2023
The Diary of Anne Frank (1959)
Factual error: Anne Frank received her diary on her birthday, and started writing on it 1 month before she went into hiding. In the movie however, she is presented with the diary on the first she arrives at the hiding place.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Since this movie is based on actual events and not considered a documentary, then the film-makers are allowed to change things to their liking.
While I feel like this sort-of correction could apply to certain elements of movies based on true stories like dramatized scenes (since there has to be some condensation of time and some elements boosted for drama, which can be chalked up to filmmakers changing things), I think a film based on a true story contradicting a known hard fact like this should 100% count as a mistake. Otherwise, you could just as easily argue that any factual error in any film is invalid because the filmmakers are "allowed to change it."
1st Jan 2023
General questions
I remember seeing a movie about 10 years ago, I think. I wanna say it was a heist movie or something along those lines, and it may have been a British film, but I was honestly deathly ill at the time and can't remember too much. All I remember is that there was a team of criminals, and one of them was an amateur adult-film actor, and I think there was a scene where he was tortured (and possibly threatened with castration if not castrated?) and killed for information. Ring any bells?
Answer: The Bank Job (2008) based on a true story. A femme fatale, Saffron Burrows, convinces Jason Statham and his crew to rob bank full of safe deposits, not knowing it's a cover to retrieve some photos of a royal family member in a "Fifty Shades" situation. It takes place during the 1970's. Unfortunately, the other boxes belong to the mob. They capture and torture the adult film actor for information and as a hostage.
Thanks! That seems to be the one.
26th Aug 2022
Game Night (2018)
Deliberate mistake: When Michelle brings up the photo of "Fake Denzel" on her phone, she says she put it into a hidden folder. Problem? She only presses on her phone once (based on the sound you hear), and has the photo up and filling the screen within about one second. Totally preposterous. Obviously, it was done that way to keep the scene moving quickly... but there's no way a single button press and a timespan of about one second is going to bring up and maximize a photo from a hidden folder on her phone.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The very faint click you hear could be her phone unlocking, so we don't know how often she taps the screen. That said, yes, it's unlikely she'd be able to access the photo that fast.
I don't understand this correction, because it literally just seems to reinforce the original mistake. Unlocking her phone wouldn't instantly bring up a photo in a hidden folder.
25th Dec 2022
General questions
I remember seeing a sketch show in the US in the late 90's or early 2000's. There was a sketch that was parodying James Bond where the villain was going to kill the Bond character, but realised Bond always had an out for everything. (Ex. "I can't feed you to alligators because you'll just run across their heads like a bridge!" etc.) At the end, the villain got so frustrated, he just killed himself by grabbing onto an electrified panel. Does anyone know what sketch show this is from?
Answer: I found my answer. Evidently it's a skit by Hale and Pace, an English comedy double-act, and it's on YouTube if you search "Hale and Pace Bond." Some of their skits were shown in the US in the 90's as part of the "Ohh, Nooo! Mr. Bill Presents..." comedy show, which was a show that aired comedy skits and shows they licensed from overseas, and were introduced by the character "Mr. Bill." (A little man made out of clay who would comedically be injured and squashed in every episode while screaming "Oh nooo!"). That's where I saw it.
Answer: I don't know about a sketch, but in an episode of "The Simpsons," a character Frank Grimes gets so frustrated that Homer is so dumb but yet archives so much acclaim, becoming an astronaut, winning a Grammy and becomes friends with celebrities. He sets Homer up to fail, but yet wins an award. Frank throws a tantrum, doing dumb things like Homer but ends up electrocuting himself. There have also have been several episodes spoofing James Bond.
Definitely not that. This was a live-action sketch show specifically parodying James Bond.
6th Oct 2008
Gremlins (1984)
Corrected entry: At the very end of the film, just before the credits start rolling, the clouds in the sky can be seen to move behind the moon - this is impossible.
Correction: Actually, the clouds are moving *in front* of the moon (if you look carefully, you can see mostly transparent wisps). The moon is so bright and the cloud layer so thin that the light shines through them.
I believe most people will see it as in front of the clouds if they are even paying attention.
Most people would be wrong, then. You can see faint shadows over the moon as the clouds move past it. They're passing over the front of it while moon illuminates through them as the correction states. It's not the greatest effect in the world (it all appears to be layers of matte paintings), but nothing about it is a mistake per se.
19th Jul 2022
The Crow (1994)
Question: We all know Brandon Lee was shot and ultimately died of his injuries. The death was recorded and has ultimately been destroyed. But does anyone know what scene it is where the accident happened? I've read that it was the scene where he jumps on the table and is shot off before popping up, and I've read that it was a scene with just Funboy shooting him with a revolver. There have also been articles where it's described as an "unknown scene"
Answer: To add, there are other websites besides Wikipedia, that also confirm that Brandon's death occurred while filming the scene of Shelly's rape.
Answer: This is from Wikipedia: On March 31, 1993, at EUE Screen Gems Studios in Wilmington, North Carolina, Lee was filming a scene where his character, Eric, is shot after witnessing the beating and rape of his fiancée. Actor Michael Massee Funboy fires a .44 Magnum Smith and Wesson Model 629 revolver at Lee as he walks into the room.
As we are all aware, Wikipedia isn't the best for credibility. Is there any other source for this information? As like I said originally, I've read articles where it's the scene where he falls off the table, and others where it's just "an unknown scene".
That Wikipedia entry is cited with a source to an official news article, so it's totally legit. I've never seen an article where it says it was the scene where he fell off a table. I've only ever heard it mentioned as the scene where he finds Shelly being beaten and raped. But here are some other articles about the incident: https://ew.com/article/1993/04/16/brief-life-and-unnecessary-death-brandon-lee/ and https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-01-mn-17681-story.html.
24th Sep 2022
Blade: Trinity (2004)
Other mistake: In the opening fight, right before the title card, Blade fights five vampires. He kicks one, who falls onto the ground and starts to crawl away. He then kills the other four vampires with his weapon (sort-of a blade that's on a line he can whip around). After those four vampires "dust," you see the fifth vampire (the one Blade had kicked earlier) on the ground... and he spontaneously "dusts" for no reason whatsoever. Blade did nothing to him... he just dies for no reason.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He gets hit by the silver knife on a string (whatever it is called) like the others in 1 swing (there are 5 in total BTW). A small touch seems to be enough to dust them.
You are correct there are five (typo), but the last vampire does not get hit by the knife in any way that I can see. Watch this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LkxaihdyRE Blade swings the knife-line above his head (you can see the line in the entire shot), and there's never any point that I can identify where it hits the vampire on the ground. Blade swings it in an upward motion, and you can see the line goes slack after it hits the last vampire on the left side of screen, implying that it stopped and fell to the ground in that direction.
The blade goes around his head at least twice before it hits the last 2 vampires. I admit that it's unlikely but you can't really see where the blade goes unless you go into slowmotion (if that even shows anything as it's all CGI). It could have hit him at any point.
It does go around his head twice and is quite fast, but it is definitely visible throughout the shot (slow mo is not required), and at no point does it go low enough to hit the vampire on the ground. It would need to completely defy all laws of physics to do that.
28th Jan 2004
Predator 2 (1990)
Other mistake: In the slaughterhouse scene, after Harrigan has injured the Predator with his shotgun and Keyes reappears, the Predator throws its disc, and severs Keyes in half at the waist. We see his legs flop to the ground, and blood pour from above, but his upper half (torso, backpack and weaponry) mysteriously remain hovering out of sight. (According to the director, the MPAA made him cut the footage of the top half of his body hitting the ground because it was too gory, creating this odd error). (01:21:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: We don't actually know if the disc completely cuts Keyes in half (or just passes through him and leaves a gaping hole). You see the blood, but the movie is edited so that it cuts back to Harrigan looking on in horror for a split-second, then back to Keyes' body on the floor (mostly obscured by a cement pillar).
They blatantly show his legs hitting the ground without the top half! I can only assume you watched an edited-for-TV version or something. It's VERY clear in the movie that he was cut in half. (In actuality, the scene was the victim of the MPAA according to the director... they had to cut the bit where the top half of his body hit the ground because it was too gory... creating this odd movie mistake).
8th Jul 2022
Army of Darkness (1992)
Trivia: Bafflingly, despite having little sex or profanity, and only minor cartoonish violence, the film was slapped with an NC-17 rating when it was first submitted to the MPAA. Everyone involved with the film was shocked. Turns out, a single 1-second shot of a little black, blood-like goo splashing onto a wall following a decapitation was the reason the MPAA gave the film an NC-17. Once it was cut, the film was reduced to an R.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While it's true that it initially got a NC-17 rating, it wasn't because of a 1-second shot of goo. It was mainly for the decapitation scene and ostensible gore. Director Sam Raimi trimmed down the decapitation scene, but refused studio pressure to trim the movie down to a PG-13 rating, so most of the people involved in the actual making of the film weren't expecting a PG-13 rating.
The one-second shot was from the decapitation scene you mentioned. It's the shot the bloody goo splashing on the wall after he slices the hag's head off. As for the second point, upon looking around, I'm finding conflicting reports. I've only really seen one or two sites saying Raimi "refused" to trim the movie down, and many more that imply he tried to appease them for a PG-13 and had no reason to believe it would be rated R/NC-17 due to how cartoonish the film is (several of these sites also cite a book as evidence, but I can't find the book online). But given there are conflicting reports, I'll edit out the last bit.
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: Furiosa was not getting gas for the war rig; it is presumably fully fuelled. Furiosa was to fill the tank with gas to bring it back to be used for other vehicles.
BaconIsMyBFF
If you're going to get gas, why have a full tank in the war rig? Put enough in it to be able to get to Gas town, pulling the attached round tank. Fill the round tank and fill up the war rig. Return with lots of gas in a full round tank and a full war rig.
I believe there is some confusion here with how the gas tank system works on the war rig. The truck itself has its own gas tank; the tank that is being towed is completely separate. It's exactly the same as real-life gas trucks.
BaconIsMyBFF
Why does that question even need to be answered? You're going to use gas going there and coming back. It doesn't matter if the war rig was full or not when it left. Assuming they're going to be gassing the war rig up once they get there to collect the gas, it's going to come back with the exact same amount of gas no matter what. So it really makes no difference whatsoever. Also, what happens if they get delayed along the way? If they only have enough gas to get to Gas Town, but something happens, they'll just get stuck.
TedStixon
I agree, it's not very smart to fill the war rig with just enough gas to get to town. But it sounds like they're saying take whatever you can out of the war rig, and you'd have that much extra gas when they get back. For example, if the rig held 25 gallons and only needed 5 gallons to get to town, you can take out 20 gallons. The rig then arrives in town empty, fills up, and comes back with 20 gallons in the tank. So now you have 40 gallons instead of just 20 (plus whatever the tank holds).
Bishop73
I think the big point is what Furiosa was planning. She filled the gas tank of the truck up to be able to go further with it; she wasn't planning on getting the gas anyway.
lionhead
Ok, I can understand that... but I still don't see why it's a question that needs to be answered, hahaha. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why every tiny detail needs an explanation or answer, especially when it doesn't really matter for the story.
TedStixon